In the Wales v. Wales opinion issued Friday, the Fifth District rejected an award of support arrearages based on the lack of support in the record for the award and the lack of any testimony that the Wife's needs were not met during the subject period.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Fifth District Rejects Timesharing, Rehabilitative Alimony, Attorneys Fee Award
The Fifth DCA ruled Friday in Lovell v. Lovell, and in so doing rejected several parts of the ruling below. First and foremost, the Fifth found error with the lower tribunal's ruling prohibiting the children from exposure to the Husband's new wife during timesharing, despite the lack of any evidence of detriment from such contact. Next, the Court rejected an eight year, four thousand dollar a month rehabilitative alimony award (but not the award itself) as needing a clearer plan for rehabilitation. Finally, based on the assets distributed to the Wife, the Court reversed the attorneys' fee award below.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Fifth District Finds Error in Failure to Set Religious Timesharing Schedule
The Fifth District Court last week issued a substituted opinion in Arcot v. Balaraman. Of particular interest was the fact that both parties were practicing Hindis, and the lower tribunal was specifically found to have erred in failing to set a schedule for the children to observe the religious holidays respected by that religion. This would of course seem to apply to any children traditionally raised as practicing members of virtually any faith.
First District Opines on Two Motions to Dismiss
Two family cases were ruled on by the First District Court this week, both opinions regarding motions to dismiss in the underlying case. In Owens v. Owens, the Court found error with the lower tribunal's dismissal of a suit, with prejudice, seeking child support arrearages, in that no notice of the hearing was provided, and as such due process was violated. In Frier v. Frier, the Court declined to review the lower tribunal's order denying a motion to dismiss, in that, while jurisdiction was invoked under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), the Court's personal jurisdiction had not been attacked, and as such the order was not subject to review.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Third District Relies on Presumption of Valid Marriage
The Third District Court this week, in Cobo v. Sierralta, reversed a lower court's ruling that annulled a marriage in large part based on the Wife's failure to provide proof of a previous divorce in the face of the Husband's claims that the marriage was not valid. The Third District Court, in part, found that there is a presumption that the last marriage was valid, and as such that it was not the Wife's burden to prove that she had been divorced from a previous husband, but the Husband's obligation to prove that she had not been. In addition, the Court found that due to the lower tribunal's failure to enforce its temporary fee order, the Wife was denied adequate representation on the issue of the annulment.
Monday, March 16, 2009
3d DCA Grants Cert in UCCJEA Matter
The Third District Court of Appeal granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Friday in the case of Karam v. Karam, in which the French court in the island region of Guadeloupe took on jurisdiction of a custody case based on representations that it was the children's "usual and permanent centre of interest," and not under the UCCJEA. The Court detailed the distinction between the federal definition of a "home state" as the state of residence for six prior months and the differing standard in the French Court, and granted cert, finding that the US court should not have relinquished jurisdiction to the foreign jurisdiction.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Oral Findings Sufficient for Child Support Modification
The First District Court today ruled in the case of Shaw v. Nelson that, due to explicit findings made on the record in the Court's oral ruling, the modification of child support made by the lower tribunal was correct. Of interest was the Court's ruling that a party failing to provide discovery was unable to raise an objection based on imprecision in the support calculations resulting from the lack of that discovery.