Business Valuation, Parent Coordinators and Bad E-Mails
MARCHECK v. MARCHECK: (2nd DCA March 27, 2015)
While the trial court can consider, for calculation of income, any of the marital business’ net income regardless of how it was subsequently distributed (salary, reinvested into business, etc.) the court cannot hypothesize amounts, nor can gross incomes substitute for net incomes without more information. In this case, trial court apparently relied on gross income and then further double counted part of this income.
WADE v. WADE: (3rd DCA March 25, 2015)
Appellate Court found that trial court’s adjustments of the prior written notice requirements in the parties’ FCJ (Final Custody Judgment) were not modifications under the meaning of Florida Statutes 61.13(3). The Court found that procedural aspects and logistics of transportation of children, and the consequences of non-compliance are ordinarily in the discretion of the trial judge and that, regardless of the parties’ ability to pay for full post-judgment modification, the Court did not have to hold a full modification trial to grant the relief requested.
The case is most interesting for its instructions to the parties and their attorneys to avail themselves to the Parenting Coordinator provision of the judgment and a caution for the language utilized in their emails to one another.
Posted by Roy Smith on Mar 27th 2015
