One of the advantages of filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy was that it allowed for a homeowner to “strip” their second mortgage.  If the homeowners were underwater on their first priority mortgage, meaning they owed more on that loan than the home is worth, chapter 13 bankruptcy provided a process for those homeowners to remove their second loan.  The homeowners would propose a chapter 13 payment plan and then file a motion to eliminate the second mortgage as part of the plan.  Upon completion of their chapter 13 plan, the second mortgage would be discharged along with their unsecured debt.

Until now Courts have not allowed a debtor to strip a second mortgage in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  The Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court, which controls the law in Florida bankruptcy courts, just issued a decision permitting a debtor to remove their second mortgage in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The case is In Re: Mcneal, 11-11352

There are several advantages to being able to strip a second mortgage in Chapter 7 bankruptcy rather than Chapter 13.  Usually, a debtor can receive a discharge in Chapter 7 in only a few months while most Chapter 13 payment plans take 3 or 5 years.  A debtor also pays less money in Chapter 7 than they would in Chapter 13.  Not all debtors though can qualify for Chapter 7 though as there is a “means test” in order to be eligible.  Chapter 13 is also a better option than Chapter 7 if the Debtor has a lot of non-exempt assets which might need to be surrendered in a Chapter 7.

Jonathan Bierfeld is an attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses in Bankruptcy Law and Civil Litigation.  He is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida.  He primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

When scheduling a hearing the attorneys attempt to estimate to the best of their ability the amount of time necessary for a given hearing.  Sometimes, this estimate is inaccurate. Due process requires that both sides be given an approximately equal amount of time to present their evidence and argument.  If there is not enough time to present evidence for one side it may be necessary to continue the hearing.  Unfortunately, this may result in a delay in receiving an order but is the proper procedure.

In one recent Second District Court of Appeal case the trial court was hearing the issue of attorney’s fees and costs.  The Wife was not able to complete the presentation of evidence for her case.  The Husband was not given an opportunity to present any evidence.  The trial court continued the hearing; however, prior to the scheduled hearing the trial court denied the motion for attorney’s fees in favor of the Husband.  Even though the Wife had some opportunity to present evidence and the court ruled in favor of the Husband, it was still error to rule prior to allowing both sides to present evidence. 

A trial court’s failure to allow a party to present evidence to be heard on the issues pending before the court constitutes a denial of due process.”

See, Farrell v. Farrell, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D882 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012).

Dustin Michael Butler is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses in Family Law and Civil Litigation.  He is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida. He primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

Termination of Parental Rights is a serious issue in Florida Law. The Department of Children and Family Services often becomes involved in situations where a child’s welfare is in danger. Many times extended family members may be concerned about the parenting style or neglect by the child’s parents. If this becomes an issue, or if abuse is a concern, the Department of Children and Family Services will often take part in the case.

In temporary situations where children need to be provided care, family members may apply for Temporary Custody by and Extended Family Member, by petitioning the Court for an order allowing them to temporarily care for the children at issue. Many times this is a better situation for everyone involved, because the children are then able to be cared for in a familiar environment, and the Court is able to monitor the situation first hand.

See In the Interest of N.F., a child N.F., Appellant v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D654.

Patricia Dills is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice
focuses in Divorce, Child Support, Family Law, and Civil Litigation. She
primarily practices in Naples, Collier County, and Fort Myers, Lee County Florida.

Unfortunately sometimes one spouse won’t follow the agreement they entered into.  This occurs for a variety of reasons, for example sometimes things have changed, sometimes they didn’t like one portion of the agreement all along, and sometimes they are just being difficult.

Regardless of the reason for the change it is important to follow the proper procedure.  If one spouse desires a change in the agreement it is necessary to file a Motion to Modify the agreement or to come to a written modification between the parties.  If your spouse does not file a Motion to Modify the agreement but unilaterally modifies the agreement it is necessary to file either a Motion for Contempt of Court or a Motion to Enforce. 

In one recent case the parties had agreed that the Husband would pay one half of their eldest child’s college expenses at a Florida University.  However, the son elected to attend an out of state school.  The mother desired that the Father pay one half of this expense.  However, the Court was without jurisdiction to order this because the mother did not modify the valid agreement. The Appellate Court held

absent a pending motion to modify, the trial court lacked authority to modify the terms of the marital settlement agreement by order that the former husband be required to reimburse the former wife for only one-half of the cost of the oldest son’s college education, based on what the cost would have been if the child had attended a state university in Florida on his Bright Futures scholarship.”   

See, Hartman v. Hartman, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Dustin Michael Butler is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses in Family Law and Civil Litigation.  He is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida. He primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.