Fifth District Protects Your Rights…Even if You Don’t

The Fifth District Court this week in the D.B. v. W.J.P. decision reviewed a mediation agreement from a dependency case where the Mother agreed to a Chapter 751 kinship order granting temporary custody to the maternal grandmother…on her letter to the Court advising she did not agree with the order, the Fifth found that a hearing was necessary despite the agreement…

Third District Reviews Deferred Division of Retirement Account

The Third District this past week released the Rivero decision, relating to an agreement that divided the value of a pension at time of divorce, but deferred payment of that sum until the Husband retired or otherwise left his employment. The Wife's attempt to divide dividends prior to his retirement or termination was rejected…

Second District Defines Limits on Imminent Harm

The Second District this week released the Oettmeier decision regarding injunctions for domestic violence, which marks a clear line between fear of imminent harm and reasonable fear of imminent harm…

Fourth Sets Clear Limits on Charging Liens

The Fourth District, on the 18^th, released the Rudd opinion, related to charging liens. The holding is essentially that while a charging lien may attach to the proceeds of equitable distribution in a divorce case, and these constitute favorable proceeds, it is not acceptable to include fees incurred in pursuit of the charging lien in the lien itself, and it is not acceptable to award a charging lien which extends beyond the scope of those favorable proceeds to the entirety of a party's assets. The Court found no error, however, with a charging lien which stated one amount owed resulting in a higher figure ordered…

4th Begins to Set a Limit on Fees

In what may be an attempt to back away from substantial fee awards between parties who each have significant assets, the Fourth District released the Von Baillou decision on July 5^th, reversing a fee award to a party who had substantial assets from the divorce on the grounds of lack of need. The ruling specifically points out that a financial review remains the first step for a fee award even under Rosen, and clearly requires at least some evidence of need…

4th Gets Even Tougher with Imputees…

On top of previous case law finding that an individual fired for intentional incompetence or malfeasance can be declared voluntarily underemployed, the Fourth District Court, in Malone, seems to extend a Court's ability to impute income to a party making bad business decisions and a token effort at the appropriate level of employment…

Another Step Towards a Temporary Waiver of Support

The Fourth District Court, in the recent Ledea-Genaro v. Genaro ruling, extended the holding of Lashkajani in enforcing a waiver of temporary support at time of final hearing, where no temporary support was requested prior. A party seeking to rely on Belcher's exception to waivers of temporary support is now, as such, required to seek that support prior to the final hearing in their case…

Strange Days at the Second

The second this week affirmed the rejection of a Mother's petition to modify support, which was filed stating that the current payor was not the father and should be released from his obligation…then they make clear that he is not prohibited from seeking any such relief…and cite to chapter 742…seems like paternity's already determined, and of course this is intrinsic fraud…so I guess they're telling him to set aside the original judgment and hope he's timely? See Hukill v. Shelton…

4th DCA Addresses Premarital Business, Tax Obligations

The Fourth District this week released Pereboom v. Pereboom, in which it reversed a final judgment of divorce on two grounds: First, the husband's premarital business wasn't shown to have increased in value since the marriage (and it was the Wife's burden to show it had…) so it was error to distribute it as an asset…second, it was found error to cut off tax liability at time of temporary relief where the husband continued to pay the parties' expenses for the remainder of the year…

Second District Looks at Zold

Zold v. Zold was reviewed and followed, albeit by a case with a final hearing predating the opinion, in the first portion of the Wamsley v. Wamsley decision out of the Second. While Zold, however, would squarely place the burden on the party claiming a lack of income passing through an S Corp, Wamsley seems to identify where the burden shifts to the other party to disprove the allegations…

Third DCA Looks At Divisible Divorce Jurisdiction

Interesting opinion released from the Third on the 30^th dealt with a divisible divorce, in which the Court initially granted divorce but lacked in personam jurisdiction over the Wife to resolve remaining issues. As such, the Final Judgment comes out without child support, and there was no mention made of future jurisdiction to award it. On modification by the DOR, the Court grants the support, and on appeal, the Third finds that child support is essential enough to a divorce that no reservation of jurisdiction was required and no mention of the issue in the Final Judgment was required to preserve subject matter jurisdiction. See Beroes v. DOR.

Fourth District Requires Counsel be Appointed for Criminal Contempt Proceedings

Gordon v. State, from the Fourth District on May 23^rd, proves yet again the difficulty family law judges can have in making criminal contempt sanctions stick—this time no public defender was appointed, as required…

Fourth Has First Impression of ICWA Issue

Seminole Tribe v. DCF is a case released on Wednesday from the 4^th DCA, and dealing with an issue of first impression in this state. In a nutshell, the Seminole Tribe of Florida brought suit against DCF on the basis that, by placing a child taken from his mother with a family other than the one suggested by the Tribe, DCF ignored the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Fourth District relied on a similar Alaskan decision and on the child's medical needs to find a legitimate departure from a presumption in favor of the Tribe.

1st District Disallows Prospective Self-Modifying Alimony Award

Bacon v. Bacon, released on May 21^st, reviewed a Final Judgment that awarded alimony and contained a prospective, automatic increase for the future. The Court reiterated that modification of alimony can only be granted based on an increase in need, and without some certainty as to such an increase, there could be no built-in increase of this type.