Fifth DCA Rejects Support Arrearage

In the Wales v. Wales opinion issued Friday, the Fifth District rejected an award of support arrearages based on the lack of support in the record for the award and the lack of any testimony that the Wife's needs were not met during the subject period.

Fifth District Rejects Timesharing, Rehabilitative Alimony, Attorneys Fee Award

The Fifth DCA ruled Friday in Lovell v. Lovell, and in so doing rejected several parts of the ruling below. First and foremost, the Fifth found error with the lower tribunal's ruling prohibiting the children from exposure to the Husband's new wife during timesharing, despite the lack of any evidence of detriment from such contact. Next, the Court rejected an eight year, four thousand dollar a month rehabilitative alimony award (but not the award itself) as needing a clearer plan for rehabilitation. Finally, based on the assets distributed to the Wife, the Court reversed the attorneys' fee award below.

Fifth District Finds Error in Failure to Set Religious Timesharing Schedule

The Fifth District Court last week issued a substituted opinion in Arcot v. Balaraman. Of particular interest was the fact that both parties were practicing Hindis, and the lower tribunal was specifically found to have erred in failing to set a schedule for the children to observe the religious holidays respected by that religion. This would of course seem to apply to any children traditionally raised as practicing members of virtually any faith.

First District Opines on Two Motions to Dismiss

Two family cases were ruled on by the First District Court this week, both opinions regarding motions to dismiss in the underlying case. In Owens v. Owens, the Court found error with the lower tribunal's dismissal of a suit, with prejudice, seeking child support arrearages, in that no notice of the hearing was provided, and as such due process was violated. In Frier v. Frier, the Court declined to review the lower tribunal's order denying a motion to dismiss, in that, while jurisdiction was invoked under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), the Court's personal jurisdiction had not been attacked, and as such the order was not subject to review.