Family Law Case Updates – March 2018


Hedden v. Hedden, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).  Trial court erred ordering a hybrid of permanent and durational alimony with the durational alimony ending when Wife turns 62 and is eligible for social security.  Court erred using husband’s employer’s contributions to husband’s retirement when retirement already divided in equitable distribution.


Pitchers v Schneider, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).  Without a transcript, appellate court cannot resolve the underlying factual issues to determine whether the trial court’s judgment is without evidentiary support.


Carter v. Carter, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).  Fact former wife failed to include Martyak language on notice of hearing for motion for contempt is not germane if other party attends hearing.

Equitable Distribution:

Subramanian v. Subramanian, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).  Error to include loans incurred after the date of filing in equitable distribution.

Jones v. Jones, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).  Error to change value at time of filing of depleted account without findings of the Court of marital waste.

Stufft v. Stufft, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).  Error to make property distribution payments enforceable by contempt.

Perez v. Perez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D444 (Fla. 5ht DCA 2018)  Error to include in equitable distribution property the parties had previously conveyed to their children.


Givens v. Holmes, 43 Fla.L.Weekly (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018).  Court cannot enter injunction against next door neighbor that deprives respondent of use of land.


Subramanian v. Subramanian, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).  Having progressive steps for timesharing that require approval of therapist or GAL to advance steps improperly delegates judicial authority to therapist and guardian ad litem.


Erlinger v. Fererico, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D6060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).  Trial court properly denied second motion to recuse based on Judge’s statement wife “does just what she wants”, judge made facial expressions and had “highly questionable rulings in the past”.  It is well settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of a hearing.  Mere characterizations and gratuitous comments, while offensive to the litigants, do not in themselves satisfy the threshold requirement of a well-founded fear of bias or prejudice.  Non verbal expressions do not provide grounds for disqualification.

Castaneda v. Castaneda, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).  Case remanded when mathematical findings did not support court’s final decision.

Albassam v Klob 43 Fla.L.Weekly D509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).  Trial court affirmed for denying 1.540 motion alleging divorce judgment was void because Wife’s first divorce was not legal  This should have been brought up in original divorce.

Brooks v. Brooks, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).  There must be extreme circumstances (i.e. occurrence of a calamitous event) to invade privileged medical records.


Gimange v. Gimange, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).  Father cannot file injunction to prevent child from being removed from jurisdiction when he entered into temporary agreement allowing relocation.


Lamorte v. Testoni, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).  Trial court affirmed for not awarding support for special needs child past 18th birthday as issue was not preserved for appeal.  However, this does not prevent parent from seeking extension of support pursuant to section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes.

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: