First District Reverses Ban on Future Pleadings

The First District Court of Appeal ruled today in Pullins v. Britton and D.O.R., finding first that the order on appeal was not appealable, but devoting some time to addressing the lower court’s prohibition on the Appellant’s future filing of any pleading alleging improper service of process except if filed by a member of the Florida Bar.  As there was no finding or other evidence that notice and opportunity to respond were given to the Appellant before that serious sanction was entered, the case was remanded for the lower tribunal to ensure such notice.

Third District Reverses Support Award Made without Affidavit

The Third District Court this week reviewed the case of Palewsky v. D.O.R., ex rel Miller.  In so doing, the they reviewed a case where the lower tribunal had determined paternity and awarded child support without a financial affidavit in the record from the mother.  The Department argued that this was harmless error, but the Third District found that the absence of the affidavit was not harmless, and was forced to reverse the award.

Second DCA Reverses Fee Award

In Routh v. Thompson and Cox, the Second District this week found error in a contempt order issued by the lower court.  That lower tribunal had ordered that the contemnor was required to pay $1,000.00 a month in attorneys’ fees on a temporary basis, and was found to have included insufficient findings to support his ability to pay that award.  In addition, as there was no finding made as to the reasonableness of the hourly rate and number of hours expended and awarded, the fee award was deficient, and reversed.

Second DCA Reverses Final Judgment

The Second District Court reversed this week in Gulledge v. Gulledge, on several grounds.  First, the lower tribunal’s failure to include a deadline for refinancing or sale of the marital home ordered in the final judgment was found to be error.  Next, for denying alimony to the husband after a thirty plus year marriage with only a finding that he had no need, and without specific income findings, the Second District found that nominal alimony of at least a dollar a year should have been ordered.  And, finally, as the lower court evidently failed to address the husband’s properly plead fee request, remand was required for reconsideration of that issue.

Fourth District Permits Action for Modification from Rehabilitative to Permanent Alimony

In Walker v. Walker, the Fourth District Court reversed the lower tribunal’s order of dismissal this week.  Prior to the expiration of the term for an agreed period of rehabilitative alimony, the Former Wife moved for modification of that award to an increased amount on a permanent basis.  The lower court dismissed on the basis that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to make such an award, but was found to have had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to proceed despite a lack of any specific reservation to award permanent alimony post-judgment.

Fourth District Corrects Paternity Judgment

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court in Williams v. Lutrario this week on all issues but two.  First, there was a failure by the lower court to award a credit for support payments made, and, although the court awarded the father the IRS tax exemption in odd-numbered calendar years, error was found in the failure to require the custodial parent to execute a waiver of that dependency exemption only if the father is current in support payments.

Fourth District Reverses Fee Award

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled this week in Hallac v. Hallac, in so doing reversing the lower court in part for its award of fees to the husband based on the wife’s failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.  Among other findings, the Court ruled that failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, without other vexatious conduct, did not rise to the level of misconduct necessary to warrant a fee award under Chapter 61.