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

Family court orders can overlap when a divorce case and a dependency case involve the same children. Even a valid time-sharing plan may not be enforceable while a dependency court’s no-contact order remains in place. A recent Florida decision affirmed denial of a parent’s requests for enforcement and reunification, although the trial court gave the wrong procedural reason. Parents navigating orders from different courts can consult a Miami child custody attorney to determine where to file and what conditions must be met before contact resumes.

Facts and History of the Case

Reportedly, the parties’ dissolution judgment included a time-sharing plan. A separate dependency case produced a no-contact order affecting one parent’s contact with the children. The parent filed motions in the divorce case to enforce the judgment’s plan and reunify contact by modifying the no-contact order. She also had a supplemental petition to modify time-sharing pending in the dissolution action.

Allegedly, the trial court denied the enforcement and reunification motions because it believed the parent needed to proceed by petition rather than motion. The parent appealed. The court reviewed the record and agreed that the filing label was not the proper basis for denial. The no-contact order was not a final judgment, and the parent had already filed the supplemental petition needed to modify the final time-sharing judgment. The court nevertheless examined whether it could grant the requested relief for other reasons supported by the record. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A home may count as a marital asset for divorce purposes even when the deed names only one spouse. That classification affects equitable distribution, but it does not necessarily make both former spouses owners of record. In a recent Florida decision, the court reversed a partition judgment that treated a marital-property label as proof of joint title. If you are resolving ownership of a home after divorce, you should consider both the judgment and the deed. A Miami equitable distribution attorney can help examine how each document affects the parties’ rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, one spouse purchased a home around the time of the 2006 marriage. The deed and mortgage named only that spouse, and the other spouse was never added to title. The parties later divorced. Their 2023 dissolution judgment classified the house as marital property, awarded sole possession to the titled spouse, and assigned that spouse sole responsibility for the mortgage. It did not direct a transfer of ownership or order an equalizing payment.

Allegedly, about six weeks after the divorce judgment, the other former spouse filed a separate partition action. She argued that the marital-property classification meant the parties jointly owned the house and that she could require its sale. The titled spouse opposed partition because she held no interest on the deed. The trial court concluded that the parties owned the property as tenants in common, ordered it sold, and directed an equal division of proceeds without credit for the titled spouse’s mortgage obligation. He appealed that partition judgment. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Parents may need evidence about a proposed relocation, but that need does not automatically permit access to years of private family messages. A recent Florida decision quashed orders requiring a parent and her mother to produce every text between them over a broad period. The court found no meaningful balance between possible relevance and their privacy interests. If you are facing relocation litigation, it is advisable to consult a Miami child custody attorney about focused discovery that addresses the dispute without exposing unrelated personal communications.

Case Setting

Reportedly, the parties were involved in a divorce case and a dispute over one parent’s request to relocate with their two children. The opposing parent believed the relocating parent and her mother had planned a move to Ohio over time. To test that theory, he requested all text messages between the two women from October 2021 forward. The relocating parent objected that the demand was overbroad and intruded on both her privacy and her mother’s. She noted that the grandmother had already been deposed about any role in the relocation decision.

Allegedly, the opposing parent later served the grandmother with a subpoena seeking all messages exchanged with her daughter from January 2024 through production. The relocating parent again objected and sought a protective order. After a hearing, the trial court denied protection and ordered both women to produce the messages. The orders imposed some limits on use and later disposal but did not restrict production by subject or meaningful date range. The parent sought extraordinary appellate review before disclosure occurred. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Courts can use civil contempt to enforce support orders, but incarceration is lawful as a coercive measure only when the person has a present way to comply. A recent Florida decision reversed a contempt order because it did not identify any specific funds available to satisfy the purge amount. The ruling illustrates the difference between a finding that support was unpaid and the separate proof needed before a court may jail someone for nonpayment. If you face support enforcement or contempt proceedings, a Miami child support attorney can help you understand the financial evidence and procedural protections at issue.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the parties married in 2020 and had a child. During their divorce, the trial court entered a temporary support order in February 2025 after finding that the husband had substantial monthly income. The order required temporary support, current child support, and payments toward arrears. After the wife asserted that he failed to comply, the court entered an initial contempt order and required a payment of $12,852 to avoid incarceration.

Allegedly, the wife later filed another contempt motion, stating that the husband had made one payment but missed further obligations. After an August hearing, the court set a purge amount exceeding $65,000. An amended September order found that the husband had the present ability to pay, questioned his credibility, and directed him to surrender if he did not pay. He was jailed, later released, and then jailed again following another hearing. His forensic accountant testified that his income and accessible assets could not cover the purge, while the wife offered no witnesses at that hearing. The husband appealed several orders, but later trial court action left only the amended September contempt order for appellate review. Continue reading ›

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:
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