Smith Family Law Firm Blog
This blog provides brief summaries of the most recent family law appellate cases and statutes that may effect the issues our existing and prospective clients are facing. This is not an exhaustive list and do not automatically assume that if a case seems similar to your facts that the same result will be reached. We encourage individuals to secure counsel. These are very difficult issues to go through alone.
Posted by Roy Smith on
Apr 20th 2018
Daniels v. Caparello: Fla 1st DCA, April 20, 2018
Parties agreed to a gradual step up to 50/50 timesharing. If the parties could not agree as to how the 50/50 timeshare was to be split, they were to mediate the matter. When mediation was unsuccessful, the parties presented before the court which indicated that it intended to set a default week on week off schedule. The parties stipulated to a different timesharing agreement (still 50/50) which was adopted by the court. The trial court order stood on appeal because the only issue before the court was how the 50/50 timeshare should be structured as opposed to whether it should be 50/50. Further, mother waived the ability to appeal as she invited error by stipulating to the timeshare and also failed to raise arguments on a motion for reconsideration (pointing out that the court should have made. Finding that the schedule was in the child’s best interests).
Lewis v. Juliano: Fla 4th DCA, April 18, 2018
Trial court erred in providing summer contact to father with a provision that mother had to provide her physical address in order to have any timesharing. Appellate court found that this constituted a prohibited modification of timeshare as a sanction for mother’s failure to abide by the final judgment (requirement to provide updated address information).
Read More...
Posted by Roy Smith on
Mar 30th 2018
The Smith Family Law Florida Case Law Update: Week of March 26, 2018.
HAPPY EASTER!
Harris v. Harris: Fla 5th DCA, March 29, 2018:
A party cannot complain of inadequate findings on appeal unless the alleged defect was raised in a motion for rehearing.
Crespo v. Lebron: Fla 5th DCA, March 29, 2018:
While business loss (gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income) can be utilized to decrease income for calculation of support it cannot be based on conclusory testimony, but instead, must be established through competent, substantial evidence.
Zarudny v. Zarudny: Fla. 3rd DCA, March 28, 2018:
Trial court properly entered permanent injunction based on domestic violence. Although separate findings as to each factor in section 61.13(3) are not required to sustain a temporary award of temporary timesharing, the record or the final judgment must reflect that the custody determination was made in the best interest of the child. Here, the trial court’s award of temporary 100% timesharing with Mother (with supervised timesharing with Father) under the circumstances was supported.
Read More...
Posted by Roy Smith on
Mar 26th 2018
Gimonge v. Gimonge: Fla 5th DCA, March 23, 2018:
While Mother’s initial move to Michigan after filing for dissolution in Florida was improper and in violation of Florida Statutes 61.13001, Father’s stipulation to a contact schedule (with Mother in Michigan), under the facts, constituted an agreement for temporary relocation as contemplated by section (2) of the same statute. Thus, the trial court properly granted Mother’s Emergency Pick-up motion when Father would not return the child after summer break.
Read More...
