The Second District Court of Appeal reversed yesterday in Hoffman v. Hoffman, a case in which the lower court had found an income of $3,000.00 a month for the former husband. The basis for this finding was that the court determined that it was unable to use the former husband’s actual income, earned in China, based on the different standard of living in that country and the U.S.. The lower court stated that “what I’ve decided to do is – and I did this on sort of a pro rata ratio-type thing in my mind – decide that his net monthly income is the equivalent of earning in the U.S. $3,000 per month.” The Second District Court found that there was no evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s determination of the $3,000.00 figure, or any imputation of income which would raise the former husband’s income to that amount. As such reversal and remand was required.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed yesterday in Frenzke v. Jacobs, a case in which largely uncontroverted evidence that certain assets were non-marital was evidently overlooked, as the lower court ordered that those assets be used to pay marital debts. The Fifth District found that, in fact, the lower court did not rule as to the marital or non-marital nature of the assets in question, requiring remand.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The First District Court of Appeal reversed yesterday in Young v. Young, a case in which the lower court granted an injunction against domestic violence in response to allegations that the wife had changed her husband’s e-mail password and used private information from the passwords in court filings. The court found that the behavior was cyberstalking, but the statutory definition of that term required reversal.
Friday, September 7, 2012
The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed today in Morris v. Mascia, a case in which the lower court granted a permanent injunction against domestic violence in favor of the appellee and against the appellant. As those parties had never resided together, the Fifth District Court reversed the lower court’s grant of the injunction as departing from Florida Statute 741.30(1)(e).
The First District Court of Appeal reversed today in Shawfrank v. Shawfrank, a case in which the Appellant, the Former Husband below, was ordered to pay substantial fees to the Appellee on the basis that his petition for modification of alimony was without merit. The First District found that in fact they were unable to conclude that the Former Husband’s petition was wholly without merit, in that the record supported that the former husband had lost a source of income, and was depleting capital assets to pay alimony. As such, because the suit was not wholly without merit, and because the parties were each able to pay their own fees, the award was reversed.