Second District Reverses Time-Sharing Injunction

The Second District Court ruled yesterday in Weissman v. Weissman, granting in part the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari regarding the lower court’s emergency ex parte order which denied him all timesharing for a period of 90 days.  The Court ruled that, while extraordinary circumstances justified the remainder of the lower court’s emergency order, there were no such circumstances justifying a denial of timesharing, and more importantly there was absolutely no notice allowed to the Petitioner prior to the ruling on that point.  As a result of that denial of procedural due process to the Petitioner, the Court granted cert as to that issue, and quashed the no-contact provision of the order.

First DCA Reverses Life Insurance Award

The First District Court of Appeal ruled Monday in Therriault v. Therriault, first affirming the lower court’s award of permanent alimony despite the “moderate” term of the marriage.  However, the First District was compelled to reverse the award of life insurance as security for that alimony in that the lower court failed to make the requisite findings regarding availability and cost of the insurance, ability to pay by the former husband, and the special circumstances warranting security for the support award, such as a spouse in poor health, one in arrears, or the like.

Denial of Injunction Modification Reversed by Fourth

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Lotridge v. Lobasso, a case in which the Appellant sought to modify a final judgment of injunction based on changed circumstances, and the request was denied without a hearing.  The Fourth reversed and remanded for a hearing to be held, where the Appellant is entitled to a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” pursuant to Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (4th DCA 2010).

Fourth District Reverses Prevailing Party Fee Award

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Miller v. Miller, a case in which the Appellant raised seven different reasons why an order granting attorneys’ fees to the Appellee should be reversed.  The Fourth District found merit in the first argument raised, which was that it was error for the Court to grant prevailing party fees under the Marital Settlement Agreement for a modification, when the prevailing party clause was self-limiting to enforcement actions.  The Appellee argued that his action for modification was inextricably intertwined with the Appellant’s simultaneous contempt action.  Citing Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the Court found that contractual fee provisions are required to be strictly construed, and as such found that the plain language of the agreement prevented an award of fees for a modification action.  The Appellee’s claim of intertwined issues was rejected because the work on the contempt and enforcement were not indistinguishable from each other, pursuant to Franzen v. Lacuna Golf Ltd. P’ship, 717 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).  On remand the trial court was mandated to vacate the fee award.

First District Reverses Permanent Alimony Award

The First District Court of Appeal has been the first Court to enforce some of the new alimony language in Florida Statute 61.08 today, in its ruling in Margaretten v. Margaretten.  Under that statute, an award of permanent periodic alimony now requires the lower court to find that no other form of alimony would satisfy before awarding permanent alimony.  The Former Wife argued that this finding was implicit in the other rulings made.  The First District rejected this claim, and in fact pointed out that some of the factors cited by the trial court would appear to support a durational award.  As such, on remand, if the trial court again orders permanent alimony, it has been mandated to first exclude all other types of alimony.

First District Court Reverses Rejection of MSA

In Colley v. Colley, the lower court issued a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage which set aside the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement as vague and in part violating public policy.  On review, the First District agreed with the former wife that there was no showing of fraud, and that any vagueness in the agreement could be solved by the Court’s interpretation.  Likewise, if part of the agreement violates public policy, only that part could be declared invalid.  Because the failure of the agreement to resolve every issue is not a reason, according to the First District, to invalidate the entire MSA, reversal was required with the Court instructed to apply the agreement as valid.

Fifth District Court Reverses Permanent Injunction

In the case of Ricks v. Dodier, the lower court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence based on the entry of a stipulation and without a full evidentiary hearing.  On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined that the stipulation in fact only provided for the extension of the temporary injunction previously entered.  As such, reversal was required.