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

Changing the label on a child support dispute does not necessarily open the federal courthouse doors. Federal civil rights law does not ordinarily authorize a federal trial court to overturn a state paternity or support judgment. A Florida federal decision shows how jurisdictional limits, state-action requirements, and pleading standards can defeat an attempted constitutional challenge. If you are disputing paternity, enforcement, or a family court order, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Miami family law attorney about what remedies you may be able to pursue.

History of the Case

Allegedly, a self-represented plaintiff asked a federal district court to review state proceedings and set aside a 2010 paternity determination and related child support orders. The plaintiff asserted that he was not the children’s father and that fraud and due process violations led to the orders. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also advanced state-law theories.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The county line should not become an avoidable barrier to seeking protection from domestic violence. Florida’s statute uses the word “circuit,” which can permit filing outside the parties’ home county when both counties belong to the same judicial circuit. A recent Florida decision confirms that this specialized rule controls over general county-based venue law. An improper dismissal may delay consideration of requested protection. If venue, protective relief, or related family proceedings affect you, speak promptly with an experienced Miami family law attorney about the proper court and available remedies.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the petitioner and respondent both resided in Lee County, which lies within Florida’s Twentieth Judicial Circuit. The petitioner sought an injunction for protection against domestic violence but filed the petition in Collier County. Collier County also lies within the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. The parties had a related family matter pending in Lee County.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In a time-sharing dispute, what a parent puts in a pleading can shape the case long after filing. A parent seeking modification must establish a substantial and material change in circumstances and show that the requested arrangement serves the child’s best interests. A recent Florida decision shows how parties may bind themselves through their assertions and how a missing hearing transcript can restrict appellate review. If you face modification, enforcement, or contempt proceedings, a knowledgeable Miami family law attorney can help present and preserve the issues shaping your family’s future.

History of the Case

Allegedly, a Maryland court dissolved the parties’ marriage in 2017 and entered custody orders in 2018. The orders granted joint legal custody and joint decision-making authority. The child lived with the mother in Florida, while the father remained in Maryland and received time-sharing during summers, spring break, and alternating holidays. A Florida circuit court later registered the Maryland decrees.

It is alleged that the mother petitioned for modification in June 2024, asserting a substantial and material change in circumstances and accusing the father of violating time-sharing and communication obligations. She asked to limit him to supervised visitation in Pensacola. The father counter-petitioned, claimed that the mother had breached communication and decision-making requirements, and sought majority time-sharing plus ultimate authority over health and education. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A mortgage payment can look routine during a marriage, yet become a six-figure issue when the marriage ends. When marital money reduces debt on one spouse’s nonmarital property, the resulting value can become a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. A recent Florida decision shows why a court must account for the entire principal reduction when an appellate mandate requires it. It also confirms that interest on an equalizing payment may depend on the equities after recalculation. If you are faced with disputes over property, marital funds, or equalizing payments, you should consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible to discuss how to protect your interests.

Case Setting 

Allegedly, during the marriage, the spouses used marital funds to reduce the note and mortgage on real property that remained a nonmarital asset of one spouse. The principal reduction totaled $355,674. In the original dissolution judgment, the trial court did not include that marital mortgage paydown within the equitable distribution scheme, prompting the former wife to appeal.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The financial consequences of divorce do not end when a marriage is dissolved. In many cases, months or even years pass before marital assets are finally distributed, leaving one spouse without the benefit of property to which they may ultimately be entitled. When that happens, an important question arises: should the spouse who was deprived of those assets be compensated for the delay? In a significant decision, the Florida Supreme Court answered that question by holding that trial courts have the discretion to award prejudgment interest as part of an equitable distribution award when doing so is necessary to achieve a fair result.

If you are facing a divorce involving substantial assets or contested property division, an experienced Miami family law attorney can help protect your financial future from the very beginning. Notably, Sandy T. Fox, P.A., represented the husband before the Florida Supreme Court in this landmark case, giving the firm firsthand experience with the legal principles that now govern equitable distribution disputes throughout Florida.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the parties’ marriage was dissolved after one spouse filed a petition for dissolution. Although the court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage relatively early in the litigation, it reserved jurisdiction to decide disputed issues involving equitable distribution, alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs. The financial issues remained pending for several years before the trial court entered a supplemental judgment resolving the distribution of the marital estate.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Divorce orders are meant to bring certainty to the parties’ financial obligations, but disputes often continue after a final judgment is entered. Problems can arise when a final judgment fails to accurately reflect the parties’ agreement or when one spouse decides to disregard the court’s order by unilaterally reducing support payments. Florida law provides important protections in these situations to ensure that negotiated agreements are properly incorporated into final judgments and that support obligations are enforced according to the law, not one party’s personal interpretation of what is fair. A recent Florida decision highlights these principles and reinforces that parties must follow court orders unless and until they are modified through the proper legal process. If you are involved in a divorce or post-judgment dispute, an experienced Miami family law attorney can help protect your financial rights and ensure that court orders are properly enforced.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the parties finalized the dissolution of their marriage after reaching agreements concerning several financial issues, including alimony. During the proceedings, the parties agreed to the duration of the alimony obligation. At the same time, another issue involving life insurance remained unresolved and was expected to be addressed at a later hearing.

It is alleged that when the trial court entered the final judgment, the order failed to include the agreed duration of the alimony award. Instead, the judgment omitted that essential term and also resolved the outstanding life insurance issue without conducting the additional hearing that had previously been contemplated. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Determining an appropriate financial outcome in a divorce requires more than simply dividing marital assets. Courts must also evaluate whether one spouse has a genuine need for support, whether the other spouse can pay, and how any alimony award will affect child support calculations. Because these issues are closely connected, an error in one part of the financial analysis can require additional proceedings even when much of the trial court’s judgment is otherwise correct. A recent Florida ruling demonstrates the broad discretion trial courts possess when fashioning equitable alimony awards while emphasizing the importance of accurately calculating child support. If you are facing a divorce involving significant assets, alimony, or child support issues, an experienced Miami family law attorney can help protect your financial future throughout the process.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the parties ended a marriage that had lasted more than 26 years and shared one minor child. Throughout much of the marriage, the former husband pursued a successful professional career that substantially increased his earnings. In contrast, the former wife worked part-time for several years after the parties’ child was born before eventually returning to full-time employment. During the marriage, the parties accumulated assets worth more than five million dollars.

It is alleged that following the parties’ separation, disputes arose regarding alimony, child support, and parental decision-making authority. After trial, the court awarded the former wife lump sum durational alimony, ordered child support, and granted the former wife ultimate decision-making authority for the parties’ child. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Missing a scheduled court hearing in a family law case can have serious consequences, including the entry of a default judgment that significantly affects a person’s legal rights. While courts expect litigants to carefully comply with procedural rules and hearing schedules, Florida law also recognizes that genuine mistakes sometimes occur. When a party can demonstrate that a missed hearing resulted from excusable neglect rather than intentional disregard for the judicial process, the law provides a mechanism for seeking relief. A recent Florida decision clarifies that when a party presents a legally sufficient claim supported by sworn evidence, the trial court generally must hold an evidentiary hearing before denying relief from a default judgment. If you are facing a default judgment or another significant procedural issue in a family law matter, an experienced Miami family law attorney can help protect your rights and advocate for a fair outcome.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the appellant sought relief from a default final judgment that had been entered after she failed to appear for a scheduled hearing. After the default judgment was entered, she filed a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), asserting in a sworn statement that she had inadvertently miscalendared the hearing date and therefore failed to appear. She filed the motion only nine days after discovering that the hearing had already taken place.

It is alleged that, at the time of the calendaring error, the appellant was representing herself rather than being represented by legal counsel. Despite her sworn explanation describing the mistake, the trial court denied her motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the circumstances surrounding her failure to appear. 

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Administrative child support proceedings offer an efficient alternative to traditional court litigation, but they also operate under a unique statutory framework that limits who may seek appellate review. Parents often assume that any party dissatisfied with an administrative support decision may appeal directly to a district court of appeal. A recent Florida decision demonstrates that this is not always true and explains how the Legislature has restricted appellate jurisdiction in these cases. If you have questions about a child support matter or need guidance navigating Florida’s family law system, you should speak with a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the Department of Revenue initiated administrative proceedings to establish child support, and an administrative law judge entered a final administrative support order that the Department later rendered. The parent receiving support was dissatisfied with the outcome and sought direct review in the district court of appeal after the final order was entered.

It is alleged that the appealing parent filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the administrative support order, believing that the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider challenges to the decision. The Department responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that Florida’s statutory scheme authorizes only certain parties to seek direct appellate review of administrative support orders. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Guardian ad Litem often plays an important role in high-conflict family law disputes by providing independent recommendations concerning a child’s best interests. Although trial courts have broad discretion to appoint a Guardian ad Litem when necessary, they must also carefully consider how the costs of that appointment will be allocated between the parties. A recent ruling by a Florida court demonstrates that a court cannot simply require one parent to bear the full financial burden without making the findings required by law. If you are involved in a custody, timesharing, or relocation dispute, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help ensure your financial and parental rights are protected throughout the litigation process.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the parties divorced several years before the dispute giving rise to the appeal. After the dissolution judgment, the mother sought a temporary suspension of the father’s timesharing with the parties’ minor children based on concerns affecting the children’s welfare. Following multiple evidentiary hearings, the trial court concluded that immediate reinstatement of timesharing was not in the children’s best interests, but ordered the parties to participate in reunification therapy to gradually rebuild the parent-child relationship.

It is alleged that the mother later sought permission to temporarily relocate to Massachusetts with the children after receiving a job opportunity. She asserted that the request was prompted in part by the father’s failure to satisfy child support obligations and other court-ordered financial responsibilities. After considering the statutory relocation factors, the trial court determined that temporary relocation served the children’s best interests, provided that reunification therapy continued and additional oversight was implemented. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
19790 W Dixie Hwy #412
Miami, FL 33180
Toll Free: 800.596.0579Phone: 305.932.6542Fax: 305.932.6453

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Sandy T. Fox, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design