Family Law Case Updates – December 2015

Squibed through December 18, 2015.


Addie v. Coale¸40 Fla. L. Weekly D2627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).  Judgment addressing two alimony factors insufficient to support award of alimony.


Jericka v. Jericka, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2659 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2015).  Order on appeal “is bereft of requisite findings” including alimony factors.  However, judgment affirmed because appellant failed to provide transcript or statement of evidence.  Appellate court cannot confirm error is harmless and lack of transcript frustrates that review.

Kidwell v. Kidwell, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2649 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015).  It is inappropriate for pro se litigant to challenge final judgment by writ of prohibition.  Prohibition is an extraordinary measure and ought to be used in very narrow circumstances.  Prohibition is preventative, not corrective.  It cannot be used to revoke order already issued.  Could not be treated as appeal under rule 9.040(c) because it was not timely filed, within 30 days of judgment.

Attorneys Fees:

Cozzo v. Cozzo¸40 Fla. L. Weekly D2652 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015).   Error to grant involuntary dismissal (directed verdict in civil matter) denying fees based solely on  fact that attorney who performed services did not testify.  Applicant need only provide proof of 1) detail, nature and extent of services and 2) expert testimony as to reasonableness.


Lynch v. Lockyer, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).  Error to enforce equitable distribution by contempt.  Here, Husband injured at work and went on disability which disqualified him from participating in FRS.  State rejected QDRO.  Court erred requiring Husband to pay from his disability payments.


Gustafasson v. Levine, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).  Florida Court did not have personal jurisdiction over Father served in Sweden with no allegations child was conceived in Florida.  Filing a limited notice of appearance, seeking discovery and agreeing to extension of discovery were defensive in nature (could not have been maintained in absence of Mother’s action) and was not sufficient to waive personal jurisdiction.


Paulick v. Paulick, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).  Trial court affirmed for granting Husband majority of timesharing even though Wife was historic caretaker.  Wife had history of restricting Husband’s timesharing and made a number of unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations against the Father.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: