Smith Family Law Firm Blog

FLORIDA FAMILY LAW UPDATE: Week of February 13, 2017

Florida Family Law Case Results

LeDoux-Nottingham v. Downs: Fla Sup. Ct. February 16, 2017:

Florida Supreme Court found that it was improper to invalidate an out-of-state judgment that allowed for grandparent visitation when, after the death of former husband, mother moved to Florida which does not recognize grandparent visitation rights. Any possible Florida public policy exception would be irrelevant as there is no public policy exception to full faith and credit due final judgments of sister states. Case embraced the 5th DCA’s position while rejecting the positions of the 4th and 2nd DCAs.

Ramadan v. Ramadan: 2nd DCA February 17, 2017:

While a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a request for continuance of trial should not be set aside unless there was an abuse of discretion, in this case the 2nd DCA found enough to show such abuse of discretion. The case had been bifurcated wherein the divorce was granted and a trial was set as to the remaining factors of equitable distribution, alimony, attorney’s fees and costs. Two months before trial on the remaining issues, Wife requested continuance as Husband had not provided financial documents necessary for forensic examination and further requested monies for attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court denied these requests. One month before trial Wife’s counsel was allowed to withdraw. Two weeks later Wife secured new LIMITED counsel to reargue for continuation, needs for records, attorney’s fees and costs.  These requests were denied again. As a result Wife represented herself at the final hearing telephonically. The Court would not entertain her additional requests for continuation. The trial court also failed to advise Wife of her ability to represent herself, testify and put forth evidence. As a result Husband was given a directed verdict. Again, these factors combined represented an abuse of discretion by the trial court and a new trial was ordered by the 2nd DCA.

February 2017 Case Law Updates

Family Law Firm Case Results

Ard v. Ard: 1^st DCA:  February 10, 2017:

Award for temporary support was reversed. While court has broad discretion with regards to temporary support the movant needs competent and substantial evidence of need and ability to pay. In this case, Wife based her needs on “future” needs when she moved from her mother’s home (where she was living rent free). No evidence was presented as to when, or if, Wife was going to move.

Stokes v. Stokes: 2^nd DCA: February 8, 2017:

Trial court’s two orders, one on modification of final judgment and one on modification of parenting plan were supported by competent evidence and included proper findings.  However, they conflicted in part and therefore was remanded for clarification.

Ryans v. Bell:  2^nd DCA: February 10, 2017:

Adoption of Mother’s proposed final judgment in paternity case did not constitute  a "substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge" however court did err in not taking into consideration Father’s payment of child’s health insurance when calculating his income for child support purposes.

Zapiola v. Kordecki: 2^nd DCA: February 10, 2017:

While a single incident of violence can support a claim for domestic violence, the trial court’s reliance of an event that occurred in 2012 (years before) was insufficient without allegations of more recent events.  Petitioner’s allegations that she has fearful based on communications from Respondent were not supported. Further, “generalized threats to engage in unpleasant, but not violent, behavior are not sufficient to support the issuance of a domestic violence injunction.”

Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson: 4^th DCA: February 8, 2017:

Trial court erred by awarding, as a sanction, the former husband an equitable lien upon her equitable distribution interest in the former husband’s retirement benefits, as a remedy for the former wife’s failure to make an equalization payment.

Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson (2): 4^th DCA: February 8, 2017:

It was proper to deny child support claim made by Wife for a child who reached the age of majority 3 years before the petition was filed. “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 proceeding the filing of the petition, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition.”

Duke v. Duke: 5^th DCA: February 10, 2017:

While there was no transcript of the trial, the Court’s determination of alimony, attorney’s fees, requirement to maintain life insurance to secure support and the ultimate parenting plan were reversed and remanded as error was clear on the face of trial court’s order.  The trial court failed to impute to Wife the interest that could be earned from her half of sizable asset (1.2 million dollar deferred retirement account) which was distributed in the judgment when determining her need for alimony.

As to attorney’s fees, trial court order failed to make a finding of the reasonable amount of hours and the reasonable rate of Wife’s attorney when calculating the attorney fee award.

As to the requirement to carry life insurance to secure support, the judgment failed to “make specific evidentiary findings regarding the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the requirement for security of the obligation.”

The parenting plan was found to be insufficient for failure to list all determinations under Florida Statutes 61.13(2)(b).

April Case Results

Case Results from the Smith Family Law Firm

Mills v. Mills: 5^th DCA (April 29, 2016): Where Husband forged signature of Wife on a loan and Wife had no knowledge of a loan made during the marriage, the loan should be considered non-marital debt of Husband where Wife never subsequently ratified the liability.

Turk v. Turk: 4^th DCA (April 27, 2016): Trial court was incorrect in finding Father in contempt for violating terms of timesharing agreement where Father’s behavior did not violate the letter of the timesharing arrangement. A person cannot be held in contempt for failure to comply with something a judicial order does not say.