Rennert v. Rennert: (Fla. 2d DCA, December 16, 2020):
Nonmarital real property (real estate) does not become a marital asset by virtue of commingling. Trial court erred as borrowing against a non-marital property to buy a marital property and later paying down the mortgage with marital funds does not convert the non-marital property to a marital property. However, the spouses are entitled to share any enhanced value in the non-marital property.
Lockwood v. Lockwood: (Fla. 2d DCA, December 16, 2020):
A trial court cannot modify a retroactive child support figure or an arrearages amount owed by a parent, as previously determined in a temporary child support order, to a date preceding the filing date of the initial petition for dissolution of marriage. In its final judgment, the trial court erroneously modified arrears, which had been awarded from February 2016 through August 2016, to February 2015 (date of separation). “The modification of the temporary support order may be retroactive to the date of the initial petition for dissolution of marriage, initial petition for support, initial petition determining paternity, or supplemental petition for modification; or to a date prescribed in paragraph (1)(a) or s. 61.30(11)(c) or (17) as applicable.”
Black v. Black: (Fla. 2d DCA, December 16, 2020):
Trial court erred in denying motion to dissolve injunction. Injunction had been agreed to for a period of two (2) years during a dissolution proceeding. When a party seeks to extend an injunction against domestic violence (or defend against the dissolution of an injunction which is set to expire), he or she must demonstrate that an additional act of domestic violence has occurred or that there is a reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence.
Aponte v. Wood: (Fla. 4th DCA, December 16, 2020):
Trial court erred in granting default judgment based on Husband’s failure to comply with Fla. Fam. L. 12.285 (mandatory disclosure) as its judgment did not contain an express written finding of willful or deliberate disregard. Husband was able to appeal, even though an motion for rehearing had not been filed, because “[r]equiring a motion for rehearing is a rule that is too restrictive and imprecise to operate fairly where children and families are the focus.” Trial court also erred by failing to make written findings identifying and assigning values to the marital assets and liabilities where, as here, the parties have presented evidence on the issue.Read More...