Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

Imputing Income to Your Ex-Spouse in Your Florida Alimony Case

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

In an alimony case, one of the more important issues you may face is deciding whether or not you or your spouse is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. This issue was at the center of one South Florida man’s appeal of his divorce judgment. The man successfully persuaded the 4th District Court of Appeal to send the case back to the trial court because that lower court had imputed no income to the wife despite clear evidence that she was voluntarily underemployed.

In this case, R.M. (husband) and C.M. (wife) from Broward County had sought a divorce after 30-plus years of marriage. As part of the trial court’s judgment of dissolution in the case, that court awarded alimony to the wife. In calculating that alimony amount, the trial court imputed no income to the wife. It was on this basis that the husband appealed the alimony award.

Your Ex-Spouse’s New Partner and Your Florida Alimony Obligation

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

One of the more frustrating turns of events for individuals ordered to pay alimony is the discovery that the ex-spouse to whom they are making support payments has moved in with a boyfriend or girlfriend. In some situations, your ex-spouse’s decision to cohabitate with another person may be valid grounds for modifying or terminating your alimony payments. Whether you succeed in obtaining a modification or termination of your obligation depends largely on the facts of your ex-spouse’s new relationship and, in some cases, which terms you put in your marital settlement agreement. As a recent Central Florida case illustrates, even if you succeed, it is important to keep in mind that there are limits to what the law can do for you.

One way to succeed is to prove that your ex is involved in a “supportive relationship,” as defined by Florida Statutes Section 61.14. That’s what happened in a recent Volusia County case. The ex-husband went to court alleging that his ex-wife, to whom he paid alimony, had entered into a supportive relationship under the statute and that he should be entitled not only to a termination of his obligation to make future alimony payments, but also to have his obligation retroactively terminated going all the way to the date that the ex-wife moved in with her partner. The ex-husband succeeded in proving the existence of a supportive relationship involving the ex-wife, and the trial court retroactively terminated her alimony as the husband had requested.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Alimony Award for Failing to Provide for Wife’s Needs

Published on: January 27, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A North Florida trial court’s decision to award an ex-wife only enough alimony to cover her insurance expenses was recently thrown out by the 1st District Court of Appeal as not proper under the requirements of the Florida Statutes. In this wife’s case, failing to award enough alimony to cover her shelter and medications required reversal. The ruling reminds those involved in divorce matters that the law demands consideration of all of the recipient’s necessities as established during the couple’s marriage, and it also serves a clear warning of the potential risks of proceeding without legal counsel.

The couple, J.R. (husband) and T.R. (wife) from Clay County, recently divorced after a long-term marriage. The husband had an income of more than $78,000 per year. The wife, who did not have a high-school degree, had an annual income of less than $16,500. When the trial court came to address the issue of alimony, the judge concluded that the wife’s needs consisted only of her insurance, including both auto and health. The cost for these expenses was $600 per month, so the trial court awarded the wife $600 monthly in permanent alimony.

Florida Husband’s Failure to Pay Wife Did Not Amount to Contempt of Court

Published on: January 20, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

An ex-husband who failed to make payments to his ex-wife, even though he was financially able, was nevertheless able to escape being slammed with contempt of court. The 5th District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court decision that found the man in contempt, ruling that the payments were part of the equitable distribution in the couple’s divorce and that contempt cannot be used to enforce equitable distribution payments.

When J.L. (husband) and A.L. (wife) decided to divorce, the trial court divided up several assets, including the retirement benefits of the husband, who was a state employee. The trial court awarded the wife 50% of the marital portion of the husband’s state retirement. Unfortunately for everyone, however, things did not go as planned. Before the husband could retire, he suffered an injury at work. Instead of receiving retirement benefits, the husband began collecting permanent disability benefits.

Florida Appeals Court Nixes Language Restrictions, Timesharing Supervisor Payment Obligations in Custody Order

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

A mother whose custody arrangement with her daughter unraveled after an involuntary psychological commitment in 2010 achieved a measure of success in a recent ruling from the 2d District Court of Appeal. While the appeals court upheld a trial court’s decision regarding primary residential custody of the child, the appeals court struck down mandates barring the mother from speaking her native Spanish to the child and forcing the mother to pay the entire bill for the timesharing supervisor who was required to attend all of the mother’s supervised visitations.

The case involved the daughter of D.F. (husband) and his then-wife, P.F.. The couple, who married in 2003, split up in 2006 shortly after the daughter’s birth. The marital settlement agreement included a timesharing schedule in which the girl resided with her mother four days per week, and with her father for three days. The agreement also named the mother as the primary residential custodian.

The mother was involuntarily committed in 2010 for psychological reasons. The father went to court seeking an emergency order to revoke the mother’s timesharing and to have himself named primary residential custodian. The court entered the order. About a week later, the mother was released and began fighting to overturn the emergency order. What ensued was a protracted battle regarding decision-making, timesharing, who was responsible for paying the timesharing supervisor, and other related issues. The trial court issued an order that kept the father as primary residential custodian and imposed many restrictions on the mother.

Don’t Ignore the Lasting Effects of a Florida Domestic Violence Injunction, Even if it Has Expired

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

Cases in which one person seeks an injunction for protection from domestic violence are very serious matters for the alleged victim. The consequences of a wrongfully entered injunction can also be substantial for the person standing accused. Since the legal impact of a domestic violence injunction is so significant, Florida law allows an accused person to contest the injunction through the court system, even if the injunction’s expiration date has passed. Based on this rule, a Central Florida man was given a new opportunity by the 5th District Court of Appeal to pursue getting his injunction thrown out, even though it had expired.

The case, which began in Orange County, involved D.J (husband). and S.J. (wife). The wife went to court seeking an injunction for protection from domestic violence against David. When an alleged victim of domestic violence goes to court seeking an injunction for protection, the court always considers the entry of two types of injunctions: temporary and final. As soon as the alleged victim files a petition for an injunction, the trial judge reviews that petition and decides whether or not a temporary injunction is warranted, and, if an immediate and present threat of violence exists, the temporary injunction is entered. These injunctions last, at most, 15 days. Final injunctions are ones issued by the judge after the conclusion of a full hearing. Some final injunctions have expiration dates set by the court, while others are indefinite in their duration.

Calculating the Duration of a Marriage for Purposes of Determining Alimony in Florida

Published on: December 28, 2015 | by Sandy T. Fox

A Central Florida wife will receive a second chance to make her case for an award of alimony, thanks to a recent decision issued by the 5th District Court of Appeal. The appeals court threw out an Osceola County trial court ruling that had given the wife zero alimony. One of the key errors that led to this reversal was the trial court’s conclusion that the couple’s marriage was one of “moderate” duration, despite the fact that the spouses had been married for more than 17 years when the husband filed for divorce.

In this case, Mr. J.Q. (husband) filed for divorce from his wife, Ms. J.Q. (wife), shortly after the couple’s 17th wedding anniversary. The couple’s divorce trial, though, did not take place until six years later. When the trial court issued its ruling, the judge stated that, taking into consideration each spouse’s relative income along with the fact that the couple’s was a marriage of moderate duration, the wife was not entitled to receive alimony.

Use of Wrong Basis for Contesting Child Support Modification Costs South Florida Mom

Published on: December 17, 2015 | by Sandy T. Fox

A Miami-Dade mother may be in the position of going from receiving child support to paying support. The mother’s attempt to challenge a court order creating this modification failed as the 3d District Court of Appeal ruled that the procedural basis she used for challenging the modification was incorrect, and, as a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the mother’s request.

When J.T. (father) and E.T. (mother) divorced in 2002, they reached a mediated settlement agreement as part of that case. The agreement stated that the husband would pay $444 per month in support for the couple’s one child. A decade later, the father went back to court to modify child support. He was approaching retirement, and his retirement would lead to a substantial reduction in his income. A hearing officer looked at both parents’ evidence and decided that, based upon the new income figures, the mother now owed the father a child support obligation in the amount of $384 per month. The trial judge approved the officer’s findings on March 24, 2013.

Court Sends North Florida Father’s Parenting Plan, Child Support Case Back for Recalculation of Parents’ Incomes

Published on: December 10, 2015 | by Sandy T. Fox

A recent case originating in Jacksonville led the 1st District Court of Appeal to throw out part of a trial court’s decision to modify a parenting plan and calculate child support. The evidence in the case did not show that a substantial change in circumstances had taken place to warrant a plan modification, and there was also insufficient evidence to support the manner in which the trial court calculated each parent’s income in arriving at the father’s support obligation amount.

The case centered around the daughter of T.B. (father) and V.B. (mother), a couple who divorced in 2005. In 2011, the father sought to amend the parenting plan. He also filed a motion asking the court to lower his child support obligation.

Court Could Not Hear Child Support Case Against Swedish Father with Insufficient Ties to Florida

Published on: December 3, 2015 | by Sandy T. Fox

A man from Sweden found himself facing a child support case in South Florida, but he ultimately was able to persuade the 4th District Court of Appeal that the Florida courts could not hear the case because Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Simply taking action in the case for the purpose of seeking the matter’s dismissal is not enough to trigger personal jurisdiction. Even when you are trying to persuade the courts that you do not have the required minimum contact with Florida, this does not handcuff you into refraining from taking action in the case, as long as that action is strictly defensive in nature.

The case was a child support action in which the mother, C.L., asked a Broward County court to impose a support obligation on the father, C.G. The court papers were served on the father in Sweden, where he resided. The mother argued that, in accordance with the Hague Convention’s rules regarding overseas service, the court could extend its jurisdiction over the father. The father submitted a limited response, filed (and quickly withdrew) two discovery requests, and also agreed to extend a discovery deadline.