Martindale-Hubbell
The National Advocates
The National Advocates
National Board of Trial Advocacy
The Florida Bar
Best Lawyers
Client Distinction Award
The National Advocates

Published on: | by

Although Florida law anticipates that parents will provide financial support for their children, the obligation to do so typically ends when the children reach the age of majority. Parties are free to enter into agreements that enlarge their responsibilities, however, and dictate that they will provide support for education or other things after the children turn eighteen. If they do, they will generally be held to the terms of such agreements, as discussed in a recent Florida child support case in which the parties disagreed over whether a marital settlement agreement obligations both parents to contribute to their child’s college fund. If you have questions about how you can protect your rights and assets in a dissolution proceeding, it is advisable to meet with a skilled Miami divorce lawyer to assess your options.

Case Setting

It is reported that the husband and the wife divorced; as part of their dissolution proceedings, they entered into a marital settlement agreement. According to their marital settlement agreement, both parties were required to contribute $500 per month to a 529 college savings plan for their child, starting after the termination of the wife’s alimony.

Allegedly, after receiving an inheritance, the wife prepaid her share of contributions, leading to an addendum in the marital settlement agreement that absolved her from making further payments. However, the husband contributed less than $500 per month to a Florida Prepaid College Fund instead of the 529 plan. The wife sought to hold him in contempt for failing to meet the agreed contribution amount. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, parents are expected to provide financial support for their children. As such, it is not uncommon for one parent to seek child support from their co-parent. When determining an appropriate support obligation in child support cases, the courts will look at, among other things, the party’s income. In some instances, the courts may find it appropriate to impute income to a parent based on their earning potential. In doing so, the courts must first analyze certain factors, and if they fail to, their decision may be reversed. Recently, in an opinion issued in a paternity action, a Florida court discussed what analysis courts must conduct before imputing income. If you have questions about your rights and obligations with regard to child support, it is wise to talk to a Miami child support lawyer promptly.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the mother and the father were involved in a dispute over paternity. During the hearing on the matter, the father testified that he worked 25 hours per week as he was building a new position within his company but was not working full-time due to taking care of his child and other personal matters.

Allegedly, the trial court issued a final judgment establishing paternity. In the judgment, the court imputed an income of $76,000 despite the father’s highest historical annual earnings being $58,000. The father argued that the imputed income and the calculation of his income for 2021 and 2022 were unsupported by competent evidence. The father appealed, challenging the trial court’s decision to impute income to him for the purpose of calculating child support. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the court’s main focus in custody proceedings is what is in the child’s best interest. In some instances, acting in the best interest of a child requires a court to issue temporary orders in response to exigent circumstances. The courts cannot lawfully do so without certain findings, though, as discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a custody case. If you have concerns about protecting your parental rights, it is wise to confer with a Miami child custody lawyer.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the mother and the father shared parental responsibility, as established by a final judgment of paternity. However, the father filed a motion requesting temporary sole custody of the child, claiming that the mother violated court orders by preventing him from seeing the child and by failing to bring the child for a required hospital evaluation after the child threatened self-harm. Despite the father not filing a formal petition to modify custody, the trial court held a hearing and orally determined that the child’s well-being required immediate transfer of custody to the father.

It is reported that the court expressed that placing the child with the father was necessary to protect the child from further psychological and emotional harm. The mother objected, arguing that the father’s failure to file a petition for modification and the absence of a finding of substantial change in circumstances made the court’s order improper. Nonetheless, the trial court believed it had the authority to sua sponte change custody due to exigent circumstances and entered the order. The mother then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, people who wish to end their marriage must abide by specific procedural rules when filing their petition for dissolution. Additionally, spouses responding to such petitions are bound by procedural rules as well. If a responding party declines to abide by such rules and fails to file an answer, the court may enter a default judgment against them. Further refusal to partake in the litigation process could ultimately result in a waiver of the right to pursue an appeal. This was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court found the husband’s failure to comply with procedural obligations or respond to discovery constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence on disputed financial issues. If you want to learn more about how you can protect your interests while ending your marraige, you should talk to  a Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the husband and wife were married, and the wife subsequently filed a petition for dissolution. The husband failed to respond to the petition, and the wife moved for a default judgment. The trial court ultimately granted the wife’s motion and issued a final judgment of dissolution, setting forth, among other things, the party’s financial rights and obligations.

It is reported that in issuing the judgment, the trial court found that the husband had waived his right to present evidence on certain disputed financial issues because he failed to respond to discovery requests, did not file a financial affidavit, and did not move to set aside the default judgment against him. The husband later appealed the trial court’s decision regarding financial matters. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Generally, in Florida custody cases in which both parents have parental rights, the courts will preclude either party from independently relocating a child without their co-parent’s permission or leave of court. As such, if a party does so, a court may order them to return the child in question to Florida, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling. If you want to know what steps you can take to protect your parental rights, it is advisable to meet with a Miami child custody lawyer as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the husband and the wife divorced in November 2015, and the final judgment included a settlement agreement that outlined a timesharing schedule and a method for determining the emancipation of their six children. The agreement also provided a dispute resolution process for issues related to shared parental responsibility, timesharing, and finances. However, it did not contain provisions related to the relocation of the minor children.

Reportedly, in August 2023, the wife relocated to Baltimore with the two minor children without the husband’s consent or filing a petition for relocation, prompting the husband to file an emergency motion to compel the return of the children to Florida. The trial court ordered the return of the minor children and the emancipation of the adult children, leading to the wife’s appeal. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It is well established under Florida law that, absent a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, marital assets are subject to equitable distribution in divorce actions, while separate assets are not. It is not uncommon for a court to mischaracterize an asset, however, and order a separate asset to be divided among the parties. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion clarifying the classification of assets in divorce actions, in a matter in which it ultimately reversed the trial court’s determination. If you have questions about your rights with regard to equitable distribution, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the husband and wife were married but filed an action to dissolve their union. The trial court ultimately issued a final judgment, distributing the parties’ community assets. The husband then sought review of the final judgment issued by the trial court. One of the key issues in the appeal concerned the inclusion of one of the husband’s bank CD accounts in the equitable distribution schedule. The husband argued that this account was a nonmarital asset, as he had acquired it ten years before the marriage and maintained sole control over it throughout the marriage. The trial court, however, had classified the account as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

Classification of Assets in Divorce Actions

On appeal, the court found that the sole issue raised by the husband that warranted review was the trial court’s classification of the CD account. The court explained that under Florida law, assets acquired by one party before marriage are generally considered nonmarital assets unless there is evidence of enhancement, commingling, or intent to gift the asset to the other spouse during the marriage. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida family law courts handling cases involving minor children aim to rule in the children’s best interest. Unfortunately, in some instances, doing so requires the courts to declare a child dependent due to the parent’s inability to provide them with proper care. The Department of Children and Families must produce proof sufficient to demonstrate dependency by a preponderance of the evidence, however, and if it fails to do so, a child should not be deemed dependent. In a recent Florida ruling, a court addressed what constitutes sufficient evidence of dependency. If you need help protecting your parental rights, it is advisable to confer with a Miami child custody lawyer promptly.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) initiated dependency proceedings after the child was born drug-positive and exhibited severe withdrawal symptoms. The child’s mother consented to the dependency adjudication, and the trial court declared the child dependent as to the father after a bench trial. The trial court’s decision was based on two findings: first, that the father had failed to protect the child from the mother’s substance abuse during pregnancy, and second, that the father’s own drug use presented a significant risk of immediate harm or neglect to the child. The father contested these findings, leading to the appeal.

Evidence Supporting a Dependency Adjudication

 On appeal, the court focused on the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the dependency adjudication. The court emphasized that a final dependency ruling is a mixed question of law and fact, which will be upheld on review if the correct law was applied and if the ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, the court noted that DCF bore the burden of proving dependency by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically showing that the child had been abused, abandoned, or neglected or was at substantial risk of imminent harm. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many Florida divorce actions, one party will seek alimony from the other. In determining whether to grant alimony requests, among other things, the courts will evaluate both parties’ income. Additionally, if one party is not employed, the courts may impute income to them. Regardless of whether a court assessment relies on an actual or imputed income, however, it must consider the net, rather than gross, amount, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you have questions about how you can protect your financial health while dissolving your marriage, it is smart to meet with a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and the wife were married for 14 years before the wife initiated a divorce action. During the divorce proceedings, both parties presented evidence and testimony, including input from their accountants and a vocational expert who assessed the wife’s employability. The trial court determined that the husband had a monthly net income of $21,000 and the ability to pay alimony, while the wife’s monthly financial needs amounted to $10,319. The court imputed an annual gross income of $60,000 to the wife, noting her lack of effort to seek employment, along with an additional $2,756 in monthly investment income.

It is reported that based on these calculations, the trial court awarded the wife durational alimony of $2,600 per month for seven years. Additionally, the wife requested attorney’s fees, arguing financial need and the husband’s ability to pay. However, the trial court denied this request, citing the wife’s engagement in litigation that was primarily intended to harass, involving non-meritorious and baseless claims. The wife appealed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

When determining parental rights in Florida custody cases, the court’s sole focus is what is in the child’s best interest. The Florida courts recognize, though, that circumstances can change, and if they do, it may also alter what is considered to be in a child’s best interest. In a recent Florida custody action, the court discussed evidence that warrants a modification of a parenting plan, ultimately determining that such a change was necessary. If you need assistance protecting your rights in a custody action, it is prudent to speak with a Miami child custody lawyer.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and wife were married and had children during their marriage.  The marriage between the parties was dissolved in 2014, and the final judgment granted primary timesharing to the wife, with the stipulation that the husband’s visitation be supervised because of his abuse of alcohol and unpredictable behavior. The judgment allowed the wife to request breathalyzer tests during the husband’s parenting time and designated five acceptable individuals to supervise the visitation.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to Florida law, with few exceptions, any assets obtained during a marriage are considered marital property, while property obtained prior to the marriage remains separate. Applying this general rule can become complicated in divorce actions in which the parties mingle separate and marital assets. As discussed in a recent Florida divorce action, when marital assets are used to pay for a non-marital asset, any appreciation in the value of the property is a marital asset as well. If you have questions with regard to your rights in a dissolution proceeding, it would benefit you to consult a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married in 2005. In 2015, the wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. The husband responded with a counterpetition. The trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution, which was subsequently appealed. In the initial appeal, the court determined that the husband’s Miami property was a non-marital asset and remanded the case to determine if there was any appreciation in its value during the marriage.

Reportedly, upon remand, the trial court found that the Miami property had depreciated during the marriage and concluded that the wife was not entitled to any share of the appreciation. The wife filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied pursuant to an order agreed upon by the parties. The wife then appealed. Continue reading ›