The Third District Court of Appeal today reversed in Sotero v. Sullivan, specifically overturning a non-final order appointing a co-parenting therapist. Because the Order delegated authority to make binding decisions and impose monetary sanctions to the therapist, and waived the confidentiality of communications with the co-parenting therapist and other therapists, it was reversed and remanded.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Second District Court of Appeal issued its ruling today in Fortune v. Fortune, in so doing reversing the lower tribunal for characterizing an advance from the Husband’s business as a marital debt, for failing to award at least nominal permanent alimony to the Wife despite her entitlement to it, for assigning dependency exemptions to the Husband without providing for waivers from the Wife or making the exemptions conditional on current child support, and for failing to restore the Wife’s maiden name despite her request.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion today in Grillo v. Clay, reversing the lower tribunal for its failure to hold an evidentiary hearing before modifying child support to include a private preschool tuition obligation, and pointing out that the order was defective as well for conditioning the Father’s exercise of timesharing on his payment of this new obligation, thus conditioning visitation rights on the payment of child support.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Fourth District Court ruled Wednesday in Cox v. Deacon, in part reminding the Appellant and others that, due to changes in Florida Statute § 741.30(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010), there is no longer a one year limitation on the term of a permanent injunction against domestic violence.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its ruling in Flores v. Flores this week, reversing the lower court solely on the basis that it did not address the Former Wife’s request for fees, made in her response to a petition to modify as well as in her written closing arguments after trial and the pretrial statement. Because the Court below did not rule on fees or reserve on the issue, and did not grant rehearing as to that failure, the Fourth District Court reversed, citing the similar case of Harbin v. Harbin, 762 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).