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

Generally, when Florida residents are engaged in disagreements over parental rights, they will file a custody action in the county in which they or their co-parent resides. If a Florida court can validly exercise jurisdiction in a custody case and issues an initial custody determination, the court’s jurisdiction will typically continue until the parties move out of the state or the court determines that the parties no longer have a connection to the state. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a custody matter, the argument that a forum is inconvenient is not a sufficient basis for relinquishing jurisdiction to another state. If you are involved in a custody dispute, it is wise to confer with a Miami divorce attorney regarding your rights as soon as possible.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the mother’s and father’s marriage was dissolved via a final judgment issued by a Florida court. The judgment also determined their rights with regard to custody and timesharing of their minor children. The father is a member of the military and is a Florida resident, but he is stationed outside of Florida.

It is reported that after obtaining the court’s permission, the mother moved to Idaho with the children while the dissolution was pending. The final dissolution order confirmed her relocation. The mother then filed a motion in an Idaho court to amend the custody agreement. She also filed a motion with the Florida court that issued the final judgment in the dissolution proceeding to transfer jurisdiction of the custody case to the Idaho court, in which she filed her motion on the grounds that Florida had become an inconvenient forum. The Florida court denied her motion, and she appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, while marital property is subject to equitable distribution in a divorce action, separate property is not; instead, it remains the property of the spouse to whom it belongs. Challenges in determining the nature of property can arise, however, when a party mingles separate and marital assets, as illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the parties disagreed over whether a boat was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. If you wish to seek a divorce, it is prudent to talk to a Miami divorce lawyer to determine how the end of your marriage may impact your property rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and the wife were married for eighteen years. After the court issued a final judgment of dissolution, the wife filed an appeal, arguing in part that the trial court erred in determining that a boat was the husband’s separate property for the purposes of equitable distribution.

Separate Versus Marital Property

On appeal, the court adopted the wife’s reasoning and reversed the trial court ruling. The court noted that the trial court determined that the boat in question was the husband’s separate property because the husband paid for it with funds he received from his father’s trust. The wife argued, however, that the husband could not prove that the boat was a separate asset because it was bought with money that was commingled with marital funds in the couple’s joint bank account. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the courts look unkindly at one party deliberately wasting community assets during a divorce or the downfall of a marriage. As such, if they find that one party has dissipated marital assets, it may negatively impact their property rights in the context of a divorce. In a recent Florida ruling, a court analyzed whether the cost of one party’s lawsuit filed prior to divorce constituted dissipation, ultimately ruling that it did not. If you or your spouse want to end your marriage, it is in your best interest to meet with a skilled Miami divorce attorney.

Background of the Case

It is reported that in 2015, the husband was fired for cause by his employer. After his termination, the employer ordered the husband to repay the bonus he received pursuant to his employment contract. The husband declined and filed a lawsuit against the employer. Ultimately, judgment was entered against the husband. He satisfied the judgment against him using marital assets.

It is alleged that the wife filed for divorce two years later. For purposes of equitable distribution, the court found that the husband engaged in misconduct at work and used marital property to pay the judgment against him without the wife’s consent or knowledge. Thus, it found that it constituted misconduct and assigned it to the husband and reduced the amount of assets he received via equitable distribution. The husband appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, parties have the right to seek alimony in divorce actions. The courts will only award alimony if it is warranted under the circumstances, however. Further, the courts may amend an alimony award if the circumstances that merited alimony change. Recently, a Florida court examined whether a temporary change in employment constituted a change that warranted a reduction in alimony, ultimately ruling that it did not. If you have questions about your alimony and property rights in a Florida divorce, it is wise to talk to a knowledgeable Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married for twenty years. In 2013, they divorced. The trial court entered a final dissolution of the marriage that incorporated the parties’ mediated agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife permanent alimony in the amount of $13,500 each month.

It is reported that in 2020, the husband sought a modification of alimony. He asserted several grounds in support of his request, including the wife’s reported increase in earning ability. During a hearing on the matter, testimony was offered indicating that during 2020 and 2021, the wife obtained temporary part-time employment, during which she earned approximately $20 per hour and worked five to ten hours per week. Her employment ended shortly before the hearing. The trial court granted the request, and the wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, any community property is subject to equitable division by the courts in a divorce action. Typically, pension benefits and any other retirement benefits accrued during a marriage constitute community property. Additionally, parties are entitled division of cost of living adjustments under Florida law as well. Recently, a Florida court clarified whether a party that is awarded a portion of a spouse’s pension in a deferred retirement option program  (DROP) is entitled to a cost of living adjustment, even if the DROP account is not created until after the divorce is final. If you want to learn more about how ending your marriage may impact you financially, it is in your best interest to speak to a Miami divorce attorney promptly.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and the wife married in 1999. In 2014, the husband filed for divorce. The following year, the court entered a final judgment of divorce that included provisions regarding the equitable distribution of the husband’s pension with the state retirement system. The provisions stated, in part, that the marital estate was distributed equally between the parties and that a QDRO must be prepared with regard to the husband’s retirement pension.

Allegedly, the court entered a QRDO that awarded the wife half of the husband’s retirement benefits that accrued from the date of the marriage to the date the divorce action was filed, to be taken as a deduction from each monthly benefit payable to the husband from the pension plan. One of the paragraphs of the QDRO provided for a proportionate share of any cost of living adjustment the husband received. The husband objected to the cost of living adjustment at the trial level. He then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Generally, the Florida courts rely on statutory guidelines when determining what constitutes appropriate child support. Parties are permitted to develop their own support agreements, though, which the courts will generally ratify as long as they are in the best interest of the child receiving support. Parties that develop their own child support agreement may face difficulties if they subsequently want to modify the terms of the agreement, however, as shown by a recent Florida ruling in which the court rejected that mother’s assertion that the trial court erred in approving the agreement. If you have questions about your rights with regard to child support, it is wise to consult a Miami child support attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father had two minor children together. Subsequent to a paternity action and mediation, they agreed to the court’s entry of a consent final judgment of paternity and relief. In part, the judgment established the father’s paternity as well as his child support obligation, as well as the parties’ incomes and financial health. Additionally, the child support calculations included a future increase in the mother’s income due to an increase in her work hours and a relative reduction in the father’s child support payments.

Reportedly, the judgment included a signed consent that ratified the parties’ settlement language and stated in part that they voluntarily and freely agreed to be bound by the agreement. Seven months after the court entered the judgment, the mother moved to set it aside, arguing that the trial court erred in imputing income to her and noting that her employer did not increase her work hours as contemplated. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Generally, people file family law actions in the court situated in the county in which they reside. If they subsequently move, though, there may be a question as to whether the court can continue to exercise jurisdiction over their case. Recently, a Florida court explained when courts within the state have the right to preside over custody cases in a matter in which it rejected the mother’s argument that the court no longer had jurisdiction over her case. If you need assistance with a custody matter, it is smart to talk to a Miami child custody attorney to determine what measures you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the mother and the father married and had two children, both of whom were born in Florida. In 2015, they divorced. The trial court entered a final dissolution of the marriage which, among other things, ratified the parenting plan established by the parties and stated that the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter. A dependency case was opened in 2019, and the dependency court placed the children with the mother in Texas temporarily.

It is alleged that in 2020, the father filed a petition to modify parental responsibility and the parenting plan in Florida. The dependency court awarded the father visitation rights and relinquished jurisdiction over the matter. The mother then moved to dismiss the father’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the mother’s motion, and she appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

While the Florida courts typically strive to maintain relationships between parents and their children, in some instances, they determine that it is in a child’s best interest to grant permanent guardianship rights to someone other than the child’s parent. While it is within the courts’ discretion to do so, they must set forth written orders adequately explaining their reasoning. If they do not, their orders might be subject to challenge, as illustrated in a recent Florida case. If you have questions about what measures you can take to protect your parental rights, it is prudent to speak to a Miami child custody attorney regarding your options.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the child was under the supervision of the Department of Children and Families. The trial court subsequently terminated the Department’s supervision and placed the child in a permanent guardianship. The child’s father appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing that it was not supported by competent evidence and that the order failed to set forth specific factual findings.

Statutory Requirements for Orders Granting Permanent Guardianship

On appeal, the court agreed with the father in part but affirmed the order to the extent that it placed the child in permanent guardianship, as it found the decision was supported by competent evidence. The court explained that the Florida Statutes require that a written order placing a child in permanent guardianship must set forth the reasons or circumstances why a child’s parents are deemed unfit to care for the child and why reunification between the child and parents is not possible. In doing so, the trial court must either make separate findings of fact or refer to specific factual findings in its order adjudicating the child dependent. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It goes without saying that people do not have to be romantically involved in order to conceive a child, and in some instances, friends will choose to embark on the journey of parenthood together. When people who are not married or a couple use unorthodox means to conceive a child, it may confound the courts with regard to defining parental rights, however. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling, in which the court overruled a trial court order denying a father’s request for timesharing due to the fact that the child in question was conceived via artificial insemination. If you want to establish your right to custody or timesharing, it is in your best interest to talk to a Miami child custody attorney about your options.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the mother and the father, who were friends, decided to conceive a child via an at-home artificial insemination process. A few years after the child was born, the father filed a petition to establish paternity and to have timesharing rights. In the mother’s answer to the petition, she acknowledged the father’s paternity and agreed that the court should establish a parenting plan and a timesharing schedule.

Allegedly, the trial court entered a temporary order granting the father timesharing rights. Eighteen months after the filing of the petition, the trial court held a hearing, after which the court issued a final judgment in which it noted that the father had been a constant presence in the child’s life and that both parties put the child’s interests ahead of their own and were flexible with regard to time sharing. Regardless, the trial court denied the father’s petition on the grounds that Florida’s law regarding assisted reproductive technology barred it from granting the father’s request. The father appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

While courts typically conducted family law hearings in person prior to 2020, since the COVID-19 pandemic, many proceedings have been held via video-teleconferencing. Regardless of whether hearings are conducted in person or over the internet, parties impacted by such hearings have certain rights, and if the court violates their rights, any rulings issued during the proceeding may be reversed. This was demonstrated recently in a Florida opinion issued in a divorce case in which the court ruled that the trial court infringed on the wife’s due process rights by ruling on matters in her absence. If you or your spouse wish to end your marriage, it is important to understand your rights and obligations, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney promptly.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife married in 2002 and had two minor children. They subsequently divorced, and in 2016, the trial court entered a final judgment dissolving their marriage. The trial court also appointed a parenting coordinator and guardian ad litem to help resolve other issues. The parties later filed multiple post-dissolution motions, seeking enforcement of the final judgment, contempt, and psychological evaluations.

Allegedly, the court scheduled a hearing for June 2021 to address certain financial issues. The court conducted the hearing over Zoom and, prior to commencing, confirmed it would only cover the issues previously indicated. The trial court stated it was going to order the wife to pay her share of the children’s tuition, after which she logged off. She logged back on ten minutes later, only to log off again when the court restated its intent. The court later ordered the wife to pay the husband the cost of the parenting coordinator’s fees in the wife’s absence. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›