Family Law Case Updates – June 2017

Alimony:

David v. David, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1441 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017).  Trial court erred denying alimony in long term marriage without findings of fact and his imputation of income for Wife was not supported by record.

Brown v. Brown, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1376 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2017). Appellate court unable to conduct meaningful review because judgment contains material inconsistencies and failed to include necessary findings of fact.

Librizzi v. Librizzi, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1339 (Fla.  2^nd DCA 2017).  Alimony award that failed to take into consideration tax consideration of support remanded.

Dottaviano v. Dottaviano, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1289 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2017).  Trial court erred removing certain expenses from Wife’s needs without explanation.  Judgment also lacked specific findings to impute income to wife.

Appeals:

Hart v. Streitz, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1353 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017).  Appellate court cannot reverse order without record or unless there is legal error on face of judgment.

Attorneys’ Fees:

Richards v. Weber, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1153 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2017).  Trial court reversed for awarding Wife 70% of her fees based solely on disparity of income when judgment did not indicate anything else was considered.

Enforcement:

Lord v. Lord, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1402 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Trial court reversed for denying motion to enforce marital settlement agreement which provided if parties could not divide personal property, court would.

Income:

Newman v. Newman, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1244 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Trial court erred not considering husband’s income from his “charter boat business”, especially when husband failed to disclose certain financial documents and violated discovery orders.  Florida case law has long recognized self-employed spouses, in contrast to salaried employees, have the ability to control and regulate their incomes.  When circumstances suggest that a self employed spouse has not accurately reported their income, the court may assign a higher income than that claimed by the spouse.

Injunctions:

Lerner v. Dum, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1389 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Trial court affirmed for entering injunction against certain financial transactions, but should have required a bond.  Good discussion.

Burns v. Bockorick, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1361 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Error to enter final judgment against staking when respondent agreed to no contact order but record does not support he agreed to injunction or that stalking ever occurred.

Faddis v. Luddy, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1359 (Fla. 3^rd DCA 2017).  Respondent’s due process was not violated at domestic violence injunction hearing because of other acts of violence.  Respondent did not object to evidence during hearing and petition referenced other acts of violence.

Leal v. Rodriguez, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1320 (Fla. 3^rd DCA 2017).  Injunction against domestic violence affirmed.  In this case, record supports objective person would have objective fear they would be victim of domestic violence based on respondent’s threats.

Kriebel v. Piedrahuta, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1263 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Injunction against repeat violence entered between wife and husband’s paramour reversed when based on what act of violence.

Modification:

Andrews v. Andrews, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1340 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2017).  Trial court properly retroactively reduced child support retroactive to the date visitation was not exercised pursuant to section 61.3(11)© but erred reducing support prospectively without modifying timesharing.

Parenting:

Curiale v. Curiale, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1346 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2017).  Order of supervised timesharing affirmed but remanded to include specific steps Mother most take to regain unsupervised timesharing.

Procedure:

McMahan v. McMahan, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1451 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017).. Trial court did not abuse discretion by limiting wife to attending deposition of incarcerated husband by phone.

Martin v. Lee, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1387 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017).  Trial court erred granting ore tenus no contact provision which was not plead for or supported by any evidence.

Alphin v. Kidd, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1373 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2017).  Order disqualifying attorney reversed when determined no confidential information was divulged in prospective client meeting with other spouse that could harm or disadvantage her.

Topic v. Topic, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1324 (Fla. 3^rd DCA 2017).. Trial court properly found challenge to forum non convienens was waived when not raised within sixty days of service.  Good discussion between forum non convienens and venue.

Relocation:

Soloman v. Soloman, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1301 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017).  Order denying relocation reversed.  Relocating parent met initial burden and Judge based rebuttal of presumption on husband’s “promise to do better”.  A court may not consider potential future or anticipated events as substitute for evidence.  Best interests’ determinations should be made at time of final hearing.

Support:

Willis v. Willis, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1437 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017). Trial court erred modifying support retroactive to date before petition filed.

Gaut v. Hansen, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1341 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2017).  Trial court affirmed for imputing income for prospective child support but reversed for not using actual income figures for determining retroactive support.

Birkmire v. Birkmire, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1289 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2017).  Trial court erred retroactively modifying support to a date the preceded petition.

H.R.N. v. S.D.L., 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1202 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2017).  Error for court to award retroactive child support which included day care for period where no day care costs were incurred.