The Third District Court of Appeal ruled today in Ross v. Ross, a case in which the lower tribunal denied a motion for rehearing filed by the former husband for being untimely. The former husband appealed, and the lower court was reversed because the former husband, who is incarcerated, did in fact certify that he placed the document in the hands of prison officials in a timely fashion, which satisfies F.R.C.P. 1.530(g). As such, the case was remanded for the lower court to consider the timely Motion for Rehearing.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Cunha v. Cunha, a case in which the lower court denied the former husband’s request to vacate a judgment based on an underlying debt which had been paid. The former wife argued that, as the debt was paid for less than full value, the former husband had not satisfied the parties’ MSA by being responsible for that debt. The lower court agreed, but the Fourth District found that the debt was satisfied, and the judgment based upon it should have been vacated.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday which amended several of the Florida Family Law Forms to anticipate the October effective date of Section 784.0485, which creates a cause of action for an injunction. The full text is available here.
The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday, the full text of which is here, and which amended virtually all rules of procedure previously dealing with the computation of time, and replacing them with one omnibus rule. This includes replacing Rule 12.090:
RULE 2.514. COMPUTING AND EXTENDING TIME
(a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing time periods specified in any rule of procedure, local rule, court order, or statute that does not specify a method of computing time.
(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time
(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and
(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, or falls within any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv), the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and does not fall within any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice.
(2) Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours
(A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;
(B) count every hour, including hours during intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and
(C) if the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, or during any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv), the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and does not fall within any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice.
(3) Period Stated in Days Less Than Seven Days. When the period stated in days is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.
(4) ―Last Day Defined. Unless a different time is set by a statute, local rule, or court order, the last day ends
(A) for electronic filing or for service by any means, at midnight; and
(B) for filing by other means, when the clerk’s office is scheduled to close.
(5) ―Next Day Defined. The “next day” is determined by continuing to count forward when the period is measured after an event and backward when measured before an event.
(6) ―Legal Holiday Defined. “Legal holiday” means
(A) the day set aside by section 110.117, Florida Statutes, for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day, and
(B) any day observed as a holiday by the clerk’s office or as designated by the chief judge.
(b) Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-mail. When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made by mail or e-mail, 5 days are added after the period that would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The First District Court of Appeal reversed on a single issue today in Blossman v. Blossman, the valuation of the parties’ voting and non-voting stock in the Abita corporation. Evidently each party’s expert used a different method of valuing stock, and the court below used a figure that was an average of the two. As this averaging of multiple valuation methods is not permitted, reversal was required.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed today in Koski v. Koski, a case in which the lower tribunal denied the Former Husband’s petition seeking modification of his alimony obligation. While the lower court found a substantial increase in the Former Wife’s income, no findings were made as to whether the increase was contemplated, or whether it was permanent. The Fourth District noted that the change appeared to be both permanent in nature and outside the circumstances contemplated at time of Final Judgment. Given this, the Court found error in the lack of findings made by the lower court showing that a review of the statutory factors did not support a modification, and remand was required for these findings to be made.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Tullier v. Tullier, affirming the lower court’s modification of timesharing for the Former Husband from supervised to unsupervised. The Former Wife appealed on the basis that there was not competent, substantial evidence supporting the modification. The Court disagreed, on the basis that two experts testified that the Former Husband was addressing his past issues, and other testimony was offered. Judge Warner dissented on the ground that the showing was not sufficient to meet the extraordinary burden standard.
Friday, July 6, 2012
E-Discovery is now on the horizon in Florida, with yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling adopting amendments to seven civil procedural rules. The full text of the ruling can be found here. In a nutshell, the ruling inserts the concept of electronic discovery into the Florida Rules by:
- Amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure) to allow the trial court to consider various e-discovery issues during a pretrial conference, and Rule 1.201 to require the parties to address the possibility of an electronic information preservation and production stipulation;
- Amending Rule 1.280, Rules of Civil Procedure, to expressly authorize discovery of electronically stored information, with some specific limitations in subdivision (d) of that rule;
- Amending Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and 1.350 as well, to permit a demand for electronically stored information in its ordinary or other reasonably usable form;
- Amending Rule 1.380 to prohibit sanctions against a party for failing to provide lost discovery which was lost due to routine operation;
- Amending Rule 1.410 (Subpoena)to permit a subpoena for electronically stored information and an objection to same.
Of additional note seems to be the frequent use of the acronym “ESI” for “electronically stored information.” I have a feeling this one will be around for a while.
The amendments take hold on September 1, 2012 at 12:02 a.m., one minute after the effective date of the new e-service rules.