Weekly Law Update on Florida Divorce & Child Custody Cases

Weekly summaries of decisions made by Florida Court of Appeals on actual divorce, child custody, child support and alimony cases.

Florida Divorce and Family Update for Week Ending September 11, 2016

September 14, 2016

Below are summaries of recent decisions from Florida's appellate courts on Florida divorce and family law issues. Clicking on the case name allows you to view the appellate opinion described in the analysis below. These summaries are courtesy of Bruce Law Firm, P.A., a law firm limited to representation of clients in the mediation, litigation and appeals of Florida marital and family law matters. The firm also created and maintains the family law focused appellate resources website DivorceCourtAppeals.com.

Case:              Cherry v. Viker
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Robert Wheeler.
Attorneys:     M. Stephen Stanfield, Emilian “Ian” Bucataru.
Issues:           Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statutes must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees, based on competent substantial evidence. Further, an award of temporary fees must be properly based on evidence to support the award because a temporary award does not create vested rights. In this case, the trial court erred as its order for temporary attorney’s fees to the Former Wife was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Specifically, the trial court’s findings regarding the parties’ financial resources were not supported by evidence (only argument of counsel was presented at the hearing below). The trial court could not have properly determined the need of the party seeking fees or the ability of the other party to pay. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              Bork v. Bork
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: David Rimmer.
Attorneys:     Ross A. Keene, Brian P. North.
Issues:           Alimony.

Holding: In making an alimony award, a trial court’s award must be based on proper findings concerning the respective incomes of the parties, which must be based on proper record evidence. In this case, the trial court erred as it calculated the alimony award based on the Former Husband’s net income after it had been reduced by the amount of a prior, temporary alimony award to the Former Wife. The record therefore reflected a clear error in the financial information utilized by the trial court in setting the permanent alimony amount. Since the temporary alimony award was in place only until the final hearing, the Former Husband’s net monthly income should have been adjusted and increased by the temporary award amount before calculating the Former Wife’s alimony amount. The trial court’s finding concerning the former husband’s net monthly income was not supported by the evidence. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:              Trainor v. Trainor
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Scott Suskauer.
Attorneys:     Christine Deis, Jenna D. Wickenhauser, Kendrick Almaguer, Yvette B. Reyes.
Issues:           Alimony, Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: The standard of review for an award of attorneys’ fees is abuse of discretion. While a trial court has broad discretion in making an award of temporary attorney’s fees, the trial court must make sufficient factual findings as to the reasonableness of the time expended and the hourly rates. In this case, the trial court erred when it failed to address the reasonableness of the Former Wife’s attorneys’ fees, regarding the number of hours expended and the hourly rate. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:              Brezault v. Brezault
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Dennis D. Bailey.
Attorneys:     May L. Cain.
Issues:           Alimony.

Holding: Florida Statutes provide a specific, non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider in making such awards. While the nature and amount of an alimony award is in the discretion of the trial court, it must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Findings must be made regarding the statutory factors, based on the evidence. Absent special circumstances which do not appear in the judgment, an alimony award should not exceed a spouse’s need. In this case, the trial court erred in the amount of alimony awarded to the Former Husband as the decision was not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the recipient spouse’s need was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, the trial court failed to make the required findings to support the award. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:              Street v. Street
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Michael Flowers.
Attorneys:     David A. Carroll, David J. Oberliesen, Tonya Holman.
Issues:           Timesharing, Procedure.

Holding: A scrivener’s error on the final order can be grounds for reversal. In this case, the trial court erred as the final order erroneously reflected the timesharing split. The appeals court reversed the portions of the final order reflecting the (scrivener’s) error and remanded for recalculation of the Former Husband’s child support payment to reflect the appropriate timesharing split.

Case:              Liguori, Jr. v. Liguori
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John S. Carlin.
Attorneys:     Kathryn F. Pugh, Bernard T. King.
Issues:           Child Support, Alimony, Parenting.

Holding: Child Support

The court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents no longer lived in the same household with the child. The standard of review for a trial court's imputation of income is whether competent substantial evidence supports it. A final judgment must allocate responsibility for the child/children's uncovered medical and dental costs if applicable. The court may adjust a child support award when the children spend a significant amount of time with the noncustodial parent.

In this case, the trial court erred when it recalculated the award of temporary child support to the extent it calculated the support from the date of filing the petition rather than the date the Former Husband moved out of the marital residence. Further, while the record supported imputation of income, the final judgment failed to allocate responsibility for the children's uncovered medical and dental costs and did not provide for the children's health and dental insurance. Finally, the trial court's calculation regarding the number of overnights allocated to each parent was incorrect. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Timesharing

A trial court's timesharing plan must be affirmed if it is supported by competent substantial evidence. When forming a parenting plan, the trial court must consider the best interest of the child. In this case, the trial court did not err as the Former Husband did not ask the trial court to continue the plan that had been in place. Instead, he offered a timesharing proposal which the trial court declined but, instead, gave him a temporary plan with more after school time. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision not to adopt either parent’s proposal and set out a different schedule because the best interests of the children were considered. The appeals court affirmed.

Case:              C.B. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Timothy R. Shea.
Attorneys:     Aaron S. Baghdadi, Derek J. Angell, Rosemarie Farrell.
Issues:           Termination, Abandonment.

Holding: An appellate court will affirm an order terminating parental rights if, upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there was a theory or principle of law which would support the trial court's judgment in favor of termination. Abandonment under Florida Statutes requires strict findings of fact that there was, among other things, no contact between Parent and Child for a period of time. In this case, the trial court did not err in terminating parental rights because it was substantiated by the pleadings and evidence. However, the trial court erred in finding abandonment, because the record reflected the Mother regularly visited with the child, provided toys and clothing for the child, and the child appeared happy to see her during the scheduled visits. The appeals court affirmed as to termination and reversed as to the finding of abandonment.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and The Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.

Florida Divorce and Family Update for Week Ending September 4, 2016

September 7, 2016

Case:             Sweeney v. Sweeney
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: G. Keith Cary.
Attorneys:     Luis E. Insignares, Rana Holz.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution.

Holding: In this case, the trial court erred in awarding an excessive credit to the Former Wife for tax payments she made on real estate commissions that were divided in equitable distribution. Specifically, the trial court erred in crediting her for taxes she paid on the marital commissions when it had already allowed her to deduct a cash amount for the same marital taxes. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             D.C.F. v. M.N. and O.C.S.
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Martin Zilber.
Attorneys:     Karla Perkins, Eugene F. Zenobi, Kevin Coyle Colbert.
Issues:           Dependency.

Holding: Determinations regarding the transfer of a case to another jurisdiction based on the “inconvenient forum” provisions of the UCCJEA are a matter of the trial court’s discretion. Once the DCF commenced the dependency proceedings in the children’s home state, the trial court had continuing jurisdiction under the statute. That jurisdiction carries with it the duty to ensure that the best interests of the children are advanced; a duty that exists during dependency proceedings, and continues through adoption proceedings. This duty exists to carry out the legislature’s goal that all dependency proceedings are to seek to achieve permanency for the children. A Florida trial court does have the ability to transfer a case when it determines that another forum is more convenient. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering termination of the DCF’s supervision over two minor children and closing the file. Specifically, the record established that the trial court acquired, and had continuing, jurisdiction over the case and children because Florida was the children’s home state under the UCCJEA. (The older child had lived in Florida for 6 consecutive months, and the infant child been born there). As the DCF commenced proceedings in Florida, the home state, the trial court had continuing jurisdiction under the statute. Its dismissal without the children having reached permanency was improper. While the trial court concluded that the children were in Puerto Rico and the parents could not be located in Florida a “transfer” of the case to Puerto Rico was warranted. The trial court was required to comply with certain statutory factors and make the necessary statutory findings, which it failed to do. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Medina v. Haddad
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Marcia B. Caballero.
Attorneys:     Theodore H. Uno, Lauren M. Alperstein, Stephanie Matalo.
Issues:           Timesharing.

Holding: In this case, the trial court erred when it failed to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Family Law Rules when ordering a child undergo a compulsory psychological evaluation. Specifically, although the trial court attempted to characterize what was effectively a psychological evaluation as a “therapeutic consultation,” the Mother was required to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Family Law Rules and prove that the child’s mental condition was “in controversy” in the litigation; and “good cause” existed for the compulsory psychological evaluation. As the Mother was not able to establish either, the appeals court quashed the trial court’s order.

Case:             Schufelt v. Schufelt
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Edward J. Richardson.
Attorneys:     Elizabeth Siano Harris.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Generally, when a party submits a proposed final judgment, it is error for a trial court to enter the judgment without providing the other party an opportunity to review the proposed judgment and make objections. Such issues raise questions of fairness and are subject to appellate review. An appellant bears the onus of demonstrating reversible error. An alleged defect must be brought to the trial court's attention by the timely filing of a motion for rehearing which raises issue or arguments regarding the alleged unequal distribution. In this case, the Appellant (Former Husband) was required to demonstrate reversible error but failed as there was no sufficient record of the hearing on point. As such, he could not show that the trial court's oral findings at the hearing was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, while the trial court's findings of fact in the final judgment were inadequate to support the unequal distribution of this marital asset, the Former Husband’s motion was not filed on time. Even if it were, he raised no issue or argument in the motion regarding the trial court's unequal distribution of the marital home. He failed to preserve the key issue for appellate review. The appeals court affirmed.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.

Florida Divorce and Family Law Update for Week Ending August 28, 2016

September 1, 2016

Case:             Steele, Jr. v. Prince
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jonathan E. Sjostrom.
Attorneys: Joseph Robert Boyd, Jr..
Issues:           Timesharing.

Holding: The trial court’s interpretation of a mediation agreement is reviewed according to the de novo review standard. The interpretation of such agreements is subject to contract law principles. The language in a mediation agreement should be given its plain meaning and not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation. In this case, the trial court erred in its interpretation of a mediation agreement governing the Father’s timesharing rights. The magistrate failed to give the language of the mediation agreement its plain meaning. By its terms, the agreement made the third weekend of the month a default period for timesharing, regardless of whether notice is provided. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Rogers v. Wiggins
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jack Helinger.
Attorneys:     John A. Smitten, Jane H. Grossman.
Issues:           Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: Florida Statutes permit a trial court to order a party in a child custody case to pay a reasonable amount for attorney's fees after considering the financial resources of both parties. The financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to be considered. However, other relevant factors to be considered include the scope and history of the litigation; the duration of the litigation; the merits of the respective positions; whether the litigation is brought or maintained primarily to harass (or whether a defense is raised mainly to frustrate or stall); and the existence and course of prior or pending litigation. In this case, the trial court erred in its consideration of the statutory factors regarding modification of child custody. Specifically, its order made a finding that the Mother had the ability to pay the fee award, but the court's factual finding that the mother had no income and no assets. The record contradicted the court’s conclusion that she had the ability to pay. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Shaver v. Shaver
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Susan Gardner.
Attorneys:     Jane H. Grossman, Allison M. Perry.
Issues:           Alimony, Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Alimony

Four steps are involved in a trial court's alimony decision-making process: the trial court must determine: (1) a party's need for support; (2) the other party's ability to pay; (3) the type of alimony or the types of alimony appropriate in the case; and (4) the amount of alimony to award. An order or award must be reversed where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court's oral pronouncement. In this case, the trial court erred as the written judgment was inconsistent with its oral pronouncement. Specifically, the final judgment awarded the Former Wife one year of rehabilitative alimony followed by four years of durational alimony but the oral judgment awarded one year of rehabilitative alimony followed by five years of durational alimony. Further, the written judgment failed to include a provision requiring the Former Husband to pay for the Former Wife's education expenses when the trial court orally ruled that he needed to pay for the rest of her education. The trial court failed to rely on competent, substantial evidence in making its determination and further declined to state a specific amount of alimony awarded and asked the Former Wife to come up with possible scenarios to show her need. The appeals court reversed.

Equitable Distribution

An award of equitable distribution is reversed and remanded to the lower court because of inconsistencies on the face of the judgment and because certain of the findings are not supported by the record. In this case, the trial court adopted the Former Wife's proposed equitable distribution schedule and found that her valuation of the marital assets was supported by competent, substantial evidence. But, like the alimony scenario, the trial court left it to the parties to submit a proposed equitable distribution scheme. It made no findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence in awarding a distribution of assets and making findings that certain assets should be excluded from equitable distribution altogether. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             J.C.O. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Martin Zilber.
Attorneys:     Eugene F. Zenobi, Kevin Coyle Colbert, Karla Perkins, Laura J. Lee (Sanford).
Issues:           Dependency.

Holding: Where an adjudication of dependency is based entirely on inadmissible hearsay, or where the trial court necessarily relied on inadmissible hearsay, it must be reversed. Parents have a right to counsel. In this case, the trial court erred when it declined the Father, who lives in Nicaragua, a right to fair notice and to properly present evidence. Specifically, the Father argued he was not properly served with notice of the proceedings. While in hearing, the trial court had the Father’s legal counsel removed from the courtroom, and continued to hear argument from the Department on the procedural (service) issue, relying on the Case Manager’s testimony that she heard the Father admit he had received the notice, to make its decision. In the circumstances the Father was not allowed to appear and the evidence of the Case Manager was inadmissible hearsay. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Ridings v. Ridings
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jessica Ticktin.
Attorneys:     Irene Annunziata, Angelica Del Vecchio.
Issues:           Alimony, Equitable Distribution, Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: When distributing marital liabilities, a trial court should include both identification of the liabilities and designation of which Former Spouse shall be responsible for payment of the liability. It is reversible error for a trial court to simply indicate that marital liabilities are to be equally divided without identifying each specific liability and without identifying which spouse is responsible for each. In this case, the trial court erred as the final judgment awarded a distribution of marital liabilities which failed to identify the liability and which Former Spouse was responsible for paying it. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Mitchell v. Mitchell
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Tim Bailey.
Attorneys:     Jason B. Blank, Michael J. Dunleavy.
Issues:           Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence.

Holding: A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a domestic violence injunction when the ruling is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Florida Statutes (2015), create a cause of action for an injunction for protection against domestic violence on behalf of a family or household member who has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence. The danger feared must be imminent and the rationale for the fear must be objectively reasonable. General harassment does not suffice. Nor does verbal violence, mental instability, a bad temper, depressive and suicidal statements, angry messages, vague actions, or general conditional future threats without overt action implying imminence. In determining whether the petitioner's fear is reasonable, the trial court must consider the current allegations, the parties’ behavior within the relationship, and the history of the relationship as a whole. In this case, the trial court mischaracterized the law. Specifically, in granting the Former Wife’s request for an injunction, the trial court explained that the question is whether there is there behavior on the part of one party that “scares” the other. on your part that scares her?” The trial court then found credible the Former Wife’s testimony that the Former Husband’s text messages were scaring her. However, the trial court’s characterization of the law was incorrect. The question should be whether the Former Wife’s fear was objectively reasonable. Further, the trial court was required to conduct a close examination of the record, the text messages, and the surrounding context, to make a determination on the facts whether it was objectively reasonable for the Former Wife to have a fear for her own safety. On the fact, the Former Husband’s text messages contained no overt (or implicit) threats to the Former Wife. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Colino v. Colino
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Michael S. Orfinger.
Attorneys:     Brett Hartley, Donald Appignani.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution, Alimony.

Holding: Equitable Distribution

A trial court’s interpretation of a prenuptial agreement is reviewed de novo, as such agreements are governed by the law of contracts. Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced pursuant to its plain language. In this case, the trial court misinterpreted the parties’ prenuptial agreement when it awarded to the Former Wife certain real property purchased by the Former Husband, transferred to the Former Wife which she later transferred back to the Former Husband by quitclaim. Specifically, the prenuptial agreement permitted her, as an owner of separate property, to dispose of such property by gift, sale or transfer. When the Former Wife obtained the property by transfer, it became her separate property. She then transferred it to the Former Husband and the series of transactions was consistent with the terms of the prenuptial agreement. She transferred the property to the Former Husband, it belonged to him and remained his separate property when he filed his petition for dissolution of marriage. Furthermore, the prenuptial agreement expressly provided that neither party would make any claim or demand on the separate property of the other party. Since neither party attempted to vacate or rescind the prenuptial agreement, the trial court was obligated to enforce its clear terms and distribute the property to Former Husband. The appeals court reversed.

Alimony

Trial courts, in dissolution of marriage cases, possess broad discretionary authority with various remedies available to do equity and justice between the parties. In this case, the trial court erred when, while it recognized that, based upon the length of the parties’ marriage and the terms of the prenuptial agreement, an award of alimony was permissible. Further, the trial court found that Former Wife demonstrated a need for alimony but elected not to award alimony to her due, in part, to its equitable distribution of the parties’ assets. Given the appeals court’s decision to reverse on the equitable distribution, the appeals court directed the trial court to reconsider and receive evidence on support.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.

Florida Divorce and Family Law Update for 2 Weeks Ending August 7, 2016

August 9, 2016

Case:             J.P. v. D.P, D.C.F. & Guardian ad Litem Program
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Karen A. Gievers.
Attorneys:     M. Linville Atkins, Mike Donovan, Kelley Schaeffer.
Issues:            Parenting, Custody.

Holding: A trial court has broad discretion in ordering timesharing, and its decision should be affirmed if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. The proper review of a petition for relocation entails a best-interests determination at the time of the final hearing. In this case, the trial court erred in rendering a final judgment establishing a parenting plan that would require the six-year-old minor child to move over 300 miles away to live with the Mother when the child begins middle school, when the prospective change in residence was unsupported by the record and contrary to the court’s finding that living with the Father was in the child’s best interests. A prospective-based analysis that purports to determine that a change in residence will be in the child’s best interests approximately 5 years in the future is impermissible. The court further erred in imposing a change in residence when it was not requested by either parent nor addressed at the hearing. This violated the Father’s due process rights. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Adkins v. Sotolongo
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Pedro P. Echarte, Jr..
Attorneys:
Issues:            Guardian at Litem Fees.

Holding: In this case, the trial court erred in granting the motion of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to compel payment of her fees in the absence of an order specifying the parties' income, the basis for a modified support amount, or any justification for a departure from the guidelines. Specifically, the trial court ordered the Father to divert a portion of his child support payment directly to the GAL for payment of her fees and pay the remainder to the Mother. It also amended its order regarding the Father’s payments to the central depository. The parties failed to arrange for a recording of hearings on the GAL’s motion, so appellate review was limited to errors on the face of the order. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Jackson v. Jackson
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Antonio Marin.
Attorneys:     Ilene F. Tuckfield, Hegel Laurent.
Issues:            Child Support, Parenting, Alimony, Equitable Distribution, Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: This was a motion for clarification by the Former Husband regarding an appellate opinion dated June 22, 2016. The appeals court granted the motion, withdrew the opinion and substituted the following: where the appellant, through no fault of his own, has been unable to provide this court with a transcript of the final hearing below, and the parties and the trial court have been unable to reconstruct the record, we are compelled to summarily reverse for a new trial.

Case:             Dickson v. Dickson
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Laurie E. Buchanan.
Attorneys:     Leanne L. Ohle.
Issues:           Child Support, Alimony.

Holding:        Alimony

An award of alimony will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to award retroactive support from the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage where there is a need for child support and an ability to pay. Florida Statutes (2013), governs alimony and provides: (1) for bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, durational, or permanent alimony (or any combination); (2) periodic payments, lump sum or both; and (3) will consider factors including the duration of the marriage, the age of the parties, their financial resources and earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties and, when applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment. For long-term marriages (17 or more years), there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of permanent alimony. A spouse’s age is not a valid basis to deny permanent alimony absent evidence that the spouse’s youth would allow her or him to earn income sufficient to support a life-style consistent with that enjoyed during the marriage.

In this case, the trial court erred in awarding bridge-the-gap instead of permanent alimony to a Former Wife, aged 42, after a 19-year marriage, who was furthering her education and had no source of income. Although the amended final judgment provides that the trial court considered the statutory factors governing the award of alimony, it was apparent from the hearing transcript that the trial judge did not have the relevant information before it to consider all statutory factors. Additionally, the court’s findings were insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of permanent alimony. Further, the trial court’s statements during the hearing indicated that the court misapplied the law regarding the Former Wife’s age. Further, the trial court erred in finding that bridge-the-gap alimony was appropriate when bridge-the-gap alimony serves to assist a spouse already capable of self-support during the transition from being married to being single.

Child Support

Under Florida Statutes (2013), in an initial determination of child support, the court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with the child, not to exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition. Factors that the court must consider in determining retroactive child support, include the need and the ability to pay of the respective parents and all actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period. In this case, the trial court erred in not considering an award of retroactive child support.

The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Jordan v. Jordan
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Alfred J. Horowitz.
Attorneys:     Nancy A. Hass.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution, Alimony, Attorney’s Fees.

Holding: An appeals court reviews final judgments of dissolution for an abuse of discretion. This is a review of a remanded decision.

Equitable Distribution

Under Florida Statutes, the distribution of marital assets and liabilities shall include specific written findings of fact regarding the identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability. In this case, the trial court failed to include lease turn-in fees on the Former Wife’s car which the Former Husband bore. The appeals court reversed and remanded on this issue.

Alimony

Florida Statutes provide that, in awarding permanent alimony, the court shall include a finding that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the parties. In this case, the trial court ordered permanent alimony and failed to make the requisite finding that no other form of alimony would be fair and reasonable. The appeals court reversed and remanded for this finding.

Attorney’s Fees

In making an award of attorney’s fees, among other things, the trial court must consider the number of hours claimed for such fees. In this case, the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees for the services of the Former Wife’s two prior attorneys in the absence of her evidence in support of the reasonable number of hours. Further, the trial court made no findings on reasonable number of hours or reasonable hourly rate. The appeals court reversed the award of fees.

Case:             Pansky v. Pansky
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Timothy L. Bailey.
Attorneys:     Troy William Klein, Jordan B. Abramowitz.
Issues:            Equitable Distribution.

Holding: There must be evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset, and the trial court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct. In this case, the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding of misconduct necessary to support equitable distribution to the Former Wife of funds the Former Husband spent pending these proceedings. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Fahey v. Fahey
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: David Rimmer.
Attorneys:
Issues:           Paternity, Custody.

Holding: Under Florida law, parental rights may only be terminated through adoption or statutory procedure. A child’s legitimacy will not be affected by a court determination of paternity or subsequent support orders. In this case, a Georgia court confirmed the parties agreement that, based on genetic test results showing that Appellant was not the biological father, he would have no parental rights or responsibilities regarding the minor child. While it may have been an error under Florida law for a Georgia court to so conclude, its judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, because the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not exceed its subject-matter jurisdiction under Georgia law. Further, the Appellant attempted to intervene in the Georgia proceedings, and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. While the Appellant’s jurisdictional argument failed, it was raised and litigated in the Georgia proceeding. Res judicata precludes Appellant from using those grounds in a Florida court. The appeals court affirmed.

Case:             Pucci v. Johnson
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Elizabeth Senterfitt.
Attorneys:     Caleb D. Rowland, William M. Blume, Beth M. Terry.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Florida Statutes require the court to value and distribute all marital assets. In this case, the trial court erred by distributing only the marital assets included in the parties’ settlement agreement (which was subsequently incorporated into the final judgment). The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Richardson v. Knight
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Dennis D. Bailey.
Attorneys:     Mason A. Pertnoy.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Generally, a settlement agreement, including a MSA, announced in open court is enforceable. However, for an oral MSA announced in open court to be valid and enforceable, the MSA must meet the statutory requirements on point and the trial judge must obtain clear and unequivocal assent to the MSA from each party on the record, and must also confirm that each party has discussed the MSA with their attorney and fully understands the terms. In this case, the trial court erred in imposing the equitable distribution scheme under an oral MSA in the absence of the record showing it relied on competent substantial evidence and failed to conform to statute (including those the court is required to consider when determining the equitable distribution of assets and liabilities in a dissolution of marriage action, and whether the equitable distribution should be equal or unequal). The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Buckalew v. Buckalew
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Renee Goldenberg.
Attorneys:     Michael A. Hymowitz, Barry S. Franklin.
Issues:            Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence. In this case, the trial court erred in an equitable distribution award when it failed to make required findings of fact in the final judgment. Specifically, it adopted the magistrate’s written findings of fact, which failed to identify the marital or non-marital status of each asset and liability, and failed to ascribe a value for those assets and liabilities as required by statute. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:             Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jessica J. Recksiedler.
Attorneys:     Christie L. Mitchell.
Issues:           Equitable Distribution.

Holding: Despite the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, an appeals court must correct mathematical errors. In this case, the record revealed the trial court erred when it adopted verbatim the Former Wife’s proposed final order without adjudicating matters itself. The oral pronouncement also frequently referenced differing amounts for the value of the same item or category of property without explanation as to how or why the trial court modified the figures. There were also mathematical errors. The appeals court reversed and remanded with direction for the trial court to ensure that the final judgment is consistent with the evidence presented.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.

Florida Divorce and Family Law Update for Week Ending May 29, 2016

May 31, 2016

Case:              Shulstad v. Shulstad
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Ashley B. Moody.
Attorneys:      Mark A. Neumaier, Bradley J. McDonald, Matthew E. Thatcher.
Issues:            Alimony.

Holding: A trial court may require a party to secure child support and alimony payments with life insurance coverage. However, the record should contain evidence of the payor's insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance, and the payor's ability to afford the insurance. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering the Former Husband/Payor to maintain life insurance coverage in the absence of a sufficient evidentiary basis. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              F.G. v. D.C.F
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Maria I. Sampedro-Iglesia.
Attorneys:      Ilene Herscher, Karla Perkins, Laura J. Lee (Sanford).
Issues:            Dependency.

Holding: The courts and legal counsel must try to identify related proceedings in order to avoid inconsistent results and facilitate judicial efficiency. In this case two separate courts granted inconsistent orders as to dependency when there was no recognition of the interconnectedness of the matters. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              Fye v. Bennett
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John L. Phillips.
Attorneys:      Siobhan Helene Shea.
Issues:            Injunction Against Stalking.

Holding: Under Florida statutes, a person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering an injunction despite the Former Boyfriend agreeing to enter into a permanent injunction against stalking as part of criminal proceedings regarding his conduct. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              Valdes v. Valdes
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Dennis D. Bailey.
Attorneys:
Issues:            Timesharing.

Holding: A trial court must rely on prior agreements and evidence in making an order as to timesharing. In this case, the trial court erred in its calculation of timesharing by granting an award inconsistent with the prior Parenting Plan without competent record evidence. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:              Maciekowich v. Maciekowich
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Edward A. Garrison.
Attorneys:      David S. Fabrikant, Richard L. Dedell.
Issues:            Alimony.

Holding: When determining permanent periodic alimony a trial court shall consider the needs of one spouse and the other spouse’s ability to pay. In this case, the trial the court erred in awarding the Former Wife nominal annual alimony because it held she did not provide evidence of need. However, the Former Husband’s evidence made out the requirements of the respective parties’ need and ability to pay. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Stark v. Stark
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John D. Galluzzo.
Attorneys:      Marcia K. Lippincott, Patrick A. McGee.
Issues:            Alimony.

Holding: Durational alimony is an intermediate form of alimony between bridge-the-gap and permanent alimony. It is used following a marriage of long duration if there is no ongoing need for support on a permanent basis. In this case, the the trial court erred in awarding the Former Wife a combination of durational and permanent alimony rather than solely awarding permanent alimony. Specifically, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Former Wife’s need or the Former Husband’s ability to pay would be materially different at the end of the durational alimony period than it was at the time the amended final judgment was entered. The appeals court reversed.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.