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.

Third District Reverses Dismissal for Failure to Serve

The Third District Court ruled today in Dolan v. Dolan, and reversed the lower tribunal’s dismissal of an amended petition for modification as a result of a failure to serve the former wife with that pleading.   The Third District Court found that the former wife had already waived the insufficiency of service claim she later prevailed upon, and that the former husband was not required to preserve that issue for appeal through a motion for rehearing.

Fourth District Court Reverses Final Judgment

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the Final Judgment today in Preudhomme v. Bailey, and while the bulk of that Judgment was affirmed on the basis of credibility determinations, the Court did reverse on some grounds.  First, the Judgment was overturned for error in determining which property was marital and non-marital.  In addition, the lower court, which provided limited and restricted visitation to the wife, was found to have erred in limiting any attempt to modify that parenting plan until fifty-two weeks of individual therapy was completed, along with twenty-six weeks of joint therapy with the children.  That limitation was found to be excessive in that it prohibited modification even if it were in the best interests of the children, who wish to see their mother.

Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects Conversion Claim

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in MacLeod v. MacLeod, and reversed the lower court’s determination as to the disposition of a certain parcel of real property.  In short, the Court ruled that residing in and making improvements to a non-marital home does not “convert” it to being marital property.  The Court did leave open, however, the issue of the value of any marital appreciation value caused by expenditure of marital funds on the property, to be determined on remand.