Trial Court Reversed by Third District for Exercising UCCJEA Jurisdiction

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Durham v. Butler, a case in which the lower court exercised its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify another state’s custody decree.  While the Third District found that Florida did, in fact, have jurisdiction to modify the foreign decree, it reversed the lower tribunal on the basis that this jurisdiction should not have been exercised.  At the time of the application for modification, there was a related action pending in the foreign tribunal, requiring reversal pursuant to Florida Statute section 61.519(1) (2011).

Second District Reverses Finding Under UCCJEA

The Second District Court of Appeal reversed yesterday in M.A.C. v. M.D.H. as to the lower court’s order finding that North Carolina, and not Florida, was the home state of the child in that paternity action.  However, it was undisputed that, while North Carolina may have been the home state as of the date of the hearing, Florida was the home state for six consecutive months prior to the date of filing.  As the lower court applied the former date rather than the latter, the Second District reversed its ruling.

Fourth District Reverses Unequal Distribution

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in part yesterday in Gilbert v. Katz-Gilbert, a case in which the lower tribunal attributed over $200,000.00 in liabilities to one party and less than $2,500.00 to the other.  The lower court did not allocate the assets to make up for the unequal distribution of liabilities, or make findings justifying an unequal distribution as required by statute.  On remand the court was instructed to either reallocate the debt or else make findings justifying the unequal distribution.

Florida Supreme Court Amends Family Forms

The Florida Supreme Court issued a 201 page opinion amending the approved family law forms yesterday, the full text of which is located here.  Virtually all of the forms have been updated to conform with recent changes in the law, but the changes appear to be very minor.

Fifth District Examines Standard of Review

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion today in Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, first spending time to address the appropriate standard of review as to the lower tribunal’s adoption of a parenting plan.  The Former Wife contended that, as the lower court mistakenly believed there was a presumption in favor of equal timesharing, the ruling constituted an error in the application of law, requiring a de novo review.  The Former Husband, on the other hand, argued that abuse of discretion was the more appropriate standard.  The District Court found no evidence that the lower court had applied a presumption in favor of equal timesharing when it granted that relief, and as such found that a de novo review would be inappropriate.  In reviewing the judgment only under the abuse of discretion standard, the Fifth District affirmed the timesharing provisions.  However, as to provisions in the parenting plan which essentially appointed the Former Husband’s parents as decision-makers in the event of an emergency or deadlock, the Fifth District agreed with the Former Wife that these provisions interfered with her parental rights, and that in the event of a deadlock the dispute must be presented to the trial court.  The Fifth District also found error in a requirement that the Former Wife provide notification of medical appointments not to the parents of the Former Husband.  The Court reversed as to these issues alone.

First District Court Reverses Equitable Distribution

The First District Court of Appeal reversed today in Vanetten v. Vanetten, a case in which the lower tribunal only valued the parties’ liabilities and one of their assets due to the limited evidence provided for that purpose.  The lower court divided the asset equally, and the liabilities unequally, without any finding supporting an unequal distribution.  This mandated reversal.

Second District Affirms Denial of Alimony

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Payne v. Payne, a case in which the parties sought dissolution of a seventeen year marriage, and the Husband appealed the denial of his request for permanent alimony.  The Court found that, while the presumption in favor of permanent alimony was certainly invoked, this was insufficient without a showing of need on the Husband’s part beyond his own capacity to earn.  The Court did, however, rely on the parties’ disparity in earning power and assets to reverse the denial of attorneys’ fees to the Husband.