Russell v. McQueen, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Trial court reversed for exceeding mandate and making similar errors that were previously reversed.
Pisciotta v. Pisciotta, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1273 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013). Award of $1,000 per month alimony reversed when former husband imputed $1200 per month in income as he would not have the ability to meet such an obligation.
Sacket v. Sacket, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Trial court confuses “prevailing party” fee clause with “defaulting party” fee provision and is reversed as a matter of law.
Allen v. Allen, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Award of attorney’s fees remanded as trial court failed to make findings of ability and need.
Milton v. Milton, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Trial court affirmed for failing to hold wife in contempt for refusing to allow timesharing. However, trial court erred as a matter of law when not requiting the return of a relocated child when 61.13001, Florida Statutes was not complied with.
Allen v. Allen, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Trial court reversed for valuing wife’s retirement at one half it’s actual value.
Waybright v. Johnso-Smith, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Order fo rotating custody reversed when it was not requested in the pleadings and Curt summarily prohibited Husband from introducing evidence.
Khan v. Khan, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Trial Court reversed for denying motion to vacate final judgment when trial court erroneously concluded final judgment was not “final”.
Presidio Networked Solutions v. Taylor, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1327 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013). Trial court reversed for ordering non party employer to reinstate health insurance without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Santos v. Flores, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1316 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2013). Order of support reversed for not allowing former wife to amend her petition.
Ingram v. Ingram, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1208 (Fa. 1st DCA 2013). Trial court’s order awarding fees reversed when Court gave party ten days to respond and Court issued order before expiration of deadline. When computing length og time, measured in days, specified by Court order, the day triggering the term must be excluded and every day of the term should be counted including weekends, holidays and the last day of the term. A party receives 5 additional days if a party must act after being served by mail or email per Rule 2.514(b).
Switzer v. Switzer, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Emergency injunction preventing Father from relocating 42 miles away with minor child reversed because order failed to make findings that 1) there is a likelihood of irrepable harm and unavailability of adequate remedy of law, 2) petitioner had a substantial likelihood of success on merits, 3) threatened injury to petitioner outweighs possible harm to respondent and 4) granting injunction would not serve public interest.
In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints, 38 Fla. L. Weekly S378 (Fla. 2013). Due to “steep decline” in legal professionalism, the Supreme Court adopts “Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints” based on existing standards of behavior codified in 1) oath of admission to Florida Bar, 2) Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, 3) Florida Bar Ideals and Gals of Professionalism, 4) Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and 5) past decisions of the Supreme Court regarding attorney discipline. Attorney Consumer Assistance and Intake Program remains mechanism for initiating, processing and resolving professional complaints.
Pope v. Smith, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Support order reversed when it failed to take into consideration economic effects of father’s other two children and anticipated travel costs of visitation.
Harris v. Harris, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1287 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013). Order of support reversed as it failed to include provision for health insurance for children and failed to address uncovered medical and dental expenses for children.
Leave a Reply