Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

Constitutional Due Process Protections and Your Florida Domestic Violence Case

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A South Florida man made a significant mistake when he arrived at court for a hearing in September 2014. He assumed “this was simple.” He didn’t hire a lawyer, and his wife did. When he left court, he had an injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against him, even though he had received less than three business days’ notice that his wife would accuse him of physical abuse at the hearing. When the husband did hire a lawyer to represent him on appeal, he got the injunction overturned by the Fourth District Court of Appeal because the short notice he received violated his due process rights. The man’s case is a stern reminder to assume nothing about any court hearing, always take them seriously, and take every step available to protect yourself, including hiring counsel.

The case arose from the troubled marriage of Palm Beach County couple M.V. (husband) and K.V. (wife). The wife went to court in the summer of 2014, seeking a protective injunction. She accused her husband of both stalking her and destroying her personal property. The trial judge declined to issue the injunction, concluding that the assertions the wife made were not enough to meet the legal requirements for issuing a protective injunction. The judge told the wife, however, that she could supplement her allegations with additional evidence to meet the legal standards. The court scheduled another hearing for Wednesday of the next week.

Governor’s Veto Kills Florida Alimony Reform Bill

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

Alimony reform in Florida is dead for at least one year after an April 15 veto of SB 668 by Governor Rick Scott. The veto represents the second time Scott has vetoed a bill that would have updated Florida’s alimony laws. While the most recent bill removed certain retroactivity provisions from the alimony reforms, which Scott cited as problematic in vetoing the previous bill, the governor again issued a veto, this time due to certain additional reforms addressing timesharing laws, which he said ran the risk of “putting the wants of a parent before the child’s best interest.”

Had it become law, the reform measure would have made several major changes in the way courts resolve divorce and child custody cases. The new law would have ended permanent alimony and would have set up alimony calculation guidelines as well. These guidelines would have assessed the amount and duration of alimony based upon each spouse’s income and the length of the marriage. The most recent bill also would have created a presumption in favor of alimony for all marriages except those lasting two years or less.

Florida Appeals Court Tosses Out Contempt Order Due to Violation of Husband’s Due Process Rights

Published on: April 13, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A man who had fallen hundreds of thousands of dollars behind on alimony to his ex-wife was potentially facing a six-month jail sentence for civil contempt before successfully appealing. The 2d District Court of Appeal threw out the punishment in the contempt order because, by imposing a punishment of incarceration in a prospective fashion, the order violated the husband’s Due Process right to have a hearing on whether or not he had the present ability to pay the amount necessary to purge himself of contempt.

The divorcing couple, E.B. (husband) and C.J. (wife), had been married for nearly three decades. They arrived at a marital settlement agreement that the trial court incorporated into the couple’s divorce decree. The husband agreed to pay the wife $125,000 per year in alimony and maintain a $1 million life insurance policy naming the wife as the beneficiary. The husband eventually fell behind on his alimony and his premium payments on the insurance policy.

Florida Appeals Court Throwns Out Dating Violence Injunction Due to Lack of ‘Imminent Threat’ of Additional Violence

Published on: April 6, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

If your ex-boyfriend or -girlfriend punched you, giving you a black eye in the process, that might make you concerned for your well-being. If, in addition, your home had been vandalized the month before, this might serve, in conjunction with the physical violence, to raise your concern even higher. However, as a recent 5th District Court of Appeal ruling demonstrates, the law regarding injunctions against dating violence requires very specific levels of proof, and one act of violence coupled with an anonymous act of vandalism are not enough to trigger the issuance of an injunction.

The woman seeking the injunction, C.S., had been in a dating relationship with V.N. that was at its end in the spring of 2015. When it ended, V.N. sent C.S. two emails expressing regret over the relationship’s demise, but C.S. did not view them as threatening. In May of that year, someone vandalized her home’s air conditioner and pool, but she did not know who committed the act. Then, in June, V.N. arrived at C.S.’s home to pick up some of his personal things. A physical altercation ensued, with V.N. twisting C.S.’s arm and giving her a black eye.

Default Judgments and Their Impact on Your Florida Family Law Case

Published on: March 24, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you fail to follow the judge’s instructions in a court order, there are usually negative consequences that happen as a result. A court can do many things to punish a party that does not follow court orders. One option — which is what happened in this case — is that the judge strikes the non-compliant party’s pleadings. That means that it is as if the party had never filed his complaint (or answer) with the court, at all. In family law cases, though, even if your spouse has his pleadings struck by the court, the law still affords him certain rights, and requires you to prove certain things, as a recent 5th District Court of Appeal case showed.

In that case, H.L. (husband) and R.L. (wife) were in the process of getting divorced. With any divorce action, the Florida court rules require each spouse to make certain disclosures to the other. These disclosures involve providing certain financial information and documentation to the other side to facilitate the case going forward.

Intentionally Diminishing Marital Assets and Your Florida Divorce Case

Published on: March 17, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

Some divorce cases go forward with both sides proceeding amicably, respectfully, and ethically. Unfortunately, this is not the case in all situations. Sometimes, a spouse may intentionally engage in wrongdoing as part of the divorce process, including improper dissipation of certain marital assets. When that happens, the law has a process for protecting the other spouse. The key in these situations is offering the right kind of proof of intentional misconduct and making sure that the trial court issues the right kind of finding. A recent case that originated in Broward County illustrated this, as the 4th District Court of Appeal threw out an equitable distribution of a couple’s assets because the court failed to make the necessary findings about the wife’s intentional misconduct.

In the divorce case of J.M. (wife) and M.M. (husband), the husband accused the wife of intentional misconduct that resulted in the dissipation of marital assets. In divorce cases, generally speaking, trial courts should not include in the equitable distribution of the couple’s assets anything that was “diminished or dissipated” during the period of time while the divorce case was pending. There is one definite situation where that is not the case, however: when one spouse commits intentional acts of misconduct that caused the diminution. When that happens, it is appropriate to include those spent assets in the misbehaving spouse’s portion of the equitable distribution.

Florida Court Decides 1.5% Portion Not to Small to Consider in Equitable Distribution Case

Published on: March 10, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Latin, there is a phrase, “de minimis,” that essentially translates to “too minor to warrant consideration” or “so small that it can be disregarded.” This phrase comes up in legal matters sometimes, when an amount is so small that the court simply declines to consider it. Of course, a sum of money that might be insignificant to someone else might be extremely important to you. In a recent Orlando case involving a a wife’s portion of her husband’s pension, the Fifth District Court of Appeal threw out a trial court’s ruling that declined to award the wife anything from that pension. While the wife’s portion may have only been a tiny fraction of the total pension, that amount was not “de minimis” to her, in the court’s opinion, especially given that, over time, that amount would total several thousand dollars.

The couple in the case, M.B. and A.C., were married for a little more than three years when the husband filed for divorce. Eleven months into their short marriage, the husband retired from his job at the Yonkers School Board of Education, where he’d worked for 31 years. After the husband initiated the divorce proceeding, the trial court in Orlando dissolved the marriage and made a ruling on equitable distribution.

Making Sure You Get a Fair Opportunity to Present Your Case in Your Florida Divorce

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you are part of a contested divorce case, arguably the most important day in the entire process is the day (or days) of the final hearing in your case. That’s when you and your spouse, through your lawyers, put on your evidence and make your arguments. Now, imagine doing that without an advance warning about when the final hearing was to take place. Fortunately, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause bars such a situation, and, citing that clause, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment in one recent divorce because the wife did not receive proper notice that a hearing before the court would be her case’s final hearing.

The wife in this case was A.S., who married N.S. (husband) in India in 2013. Shortly after the wedding, the husband moved to Florida. A year later, the husband filed for divorce. The husband asserted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and that the couple shared no marital personal property or real estate that would require division. The wife submitted a response that asserted that the marriage was not irretrievably broken. She also challenged the husband’s claims about property division and informed the court that she lived in India, lacked immigration clearance to travel to Florida, and lacked the financial means to hire a lawyer.

Shared Parental Responsibility Under Florida Law and Your Child’s Extracurricular Activities

Published on: February 25, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A well-known idiom points out that “the devil is in the details.” Divorce and child custody arrangements can be a lot like that. That’s because there are a lot of details, both great and small, that must be addressed in order to create a working shared parental responsibility relationship. Decisions that parents who share joint custody must work together to make may run the spectrum from choosing the child’s schools to religious training and attendance to participation in sports or other extracurricular activities. Whatever the subject matter is, it’s important to understand what the courts can and cannot demand when it comes to a parenting plan. One plan from Southwest Florida got thrown out by the 2d District Court of Appeal recently because it improperly stripped away rights from one of the child’s parents.

The case, which originated in Naples, involved the children of M.L. (father) and A.L. (mother). The couple had a parenting plan in place, but some time later, the mother went back to court seeking a modification. The trial court made a modification to the order, awarding shared parental responsibility to both of the parents but also declaring that “if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend.”

Shortage of Proof Leads to Reversal of Florida Woman’s Order of Protection

Published on: February 18, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A Florida resident who initially obtained an injunction of protection against her ex-boyfriend from a Lee County trial court lost that order when the 2d District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling. The injunction was improper because the woman lacked enough clear evidence that the ex-boyfriend had engaged in acts of domestic violence, other than an “isolated” incident that took place nearly two years before the woman went to court.

The origins of the case were a series of ominous but arguably circumstantial events. In the spring of 2013, C.J. decided to move out of the apartment she had been sharing with her boyfriend, G.L. A week later, C.J. and her mother each found that all of the tires on their vehicles were flat. Three months later, C.J.’s house was “shot up.” Three months after that, her car was vandalized, and three months after the vandalism, someone set her car on fire. C.J. did not see G.L. commit any of the acts, but, according to C.J., after each event, G.L. would check with one of the woman’s friends “to see if they knew anything.”