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.