Florida law is well settled that absent a contractual agreement releasing the liability on the promissory note, parties are responsible for the debt even after the foreclosure process is complete.  Therefore, a trial court cannot factor the speculative release of the debt in its award of equitable distribution.

A recent case out of the Third District Court of Appeal deals with this very issue.  The Husband wanted to let the marital home go into strategic foreclosure due to being underwater on the home by approximately $76,000.  However, the Wife did not want to have her reputation tarnished.  The trial court found that most people in their situation would elect strategic foreclosure and since the Wife insisted on keeping the house she should solely be liable for the debt.  The Appeals Court reversed finding this rationale legally insufficient.  Specifically, since Florida law is well settled that absent a contractual agreement releasing the liability on the promissory note, parties are responsible for the debt even after losing the collateral, the Appeals Court found the liability to be marital.  Further, as the trial court’s rationale was not within the statutory guidelines for deviation from an equal division, the Appeals Court found the trial court’s rational legally insufficient.  

See, Bryne v. Bryne, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D688 (Fla. 3d 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.

Sometimes the Court will allow one party to stay in the marital home while the minor child(ren) finish high school or reach majority.  It is important that the trial court set a specific enddate for the exclusive use and possession of the marital home though.  The Court can even order the mortgage to be split as part of equitable distribution and not as an inclusion in child support. 

Specifically in one recent case out of the Second District Court of Appeals the parties had a minor child.  The Court ordered that the minor child and mother could remain in the home until the minor child reached eighteen.  The trial court further ordered that the father pay child support and pay half the mortgage.  Once the child reached eighteen the home could be sold and the proceeds split.  The father appealed this decision and the Second District Court of Appeals found that the court had set a specific endpoint and that the requirement that he pay half the mortgage was not a part of his child support.

In the current economic times it sometimes does not make financial sense to sell the marital home immediately.  This is one solution which is sometimes explored in Florida Divorces.

See, Philips v. Philips, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D496 (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.

Sometimes in Florida a case will be referred to a general magistrate for a hearing or trial.  Often the rationale for this is to alleviate crowded Circuit Court dockets and for the parties to get a hearing sooner than they would in Circuit Court.  However, as is often the case in any court, one party may not like the outcome.  Rules of Procedure provide that an “exception” to the magistrates report must be filed within a specified time period.  If an exception is not timely filed, the Circuit Judge will sign an order adopting the magistrate’s findings and opinion.  Once this order is adopted by the Circuit Judge the only available appeal is to the district court of appeal.  Another Circuit Judge or Magistrate cannot change the order of the previous Judge or magistrate. Additionally, the opinion will only be overturned for errors of law; not simply because another Judge views the facts differently.

It is important to have an attorney represent you at all stages of a case.  Often times, there is nothing an attorney can do after the trial because the record of the court case will not support an appeal.  However, the attorney may have been able to achieve a different outcome if they had been hired at the beginning of the case. 

See, Drdek v. Drdek, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D420 (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.

In Florida, attorney’s fees for divorce cases can be paid by the more wealthy party on a “need and ability to pay” basis.  The Court will consider the equitable distribution between the parties at the end of the case in the calculation of need and ability to pay.  A recent case out of the Second District Court of Appeal demonstrates how the Court should make this calculation.

In this case the Husband earned the family’s income, earning $175,000 base salary, $6,000 automobile allowance, and substantial bonuses. The Court resolved alimony and child support awarding the approximately $6,000 a month in various types of support.  The Court also resolved equitable distribution awarding both parties over one million dollars in assets.  Throughout the case the Husband had voluntarily contributed $20,000 towards the Wife’s attorney’s fees and cost. 

At the conclusion of trial both parties requested attorney’s fees.  The Husband requested Wife pay his attorney’s fees for her misconduct during the case.  The Wife requested the Husband to pay her fees based on her need and his ability to pay.  The trial court denied Husband’s request, finding that Wife had caused some unnecessary delay and unnecessary increase in attorney’s fees, but that extenuating circumstances warranted some of this delay.  The Trial Court also denied Wife’s motion finding that the parties were in relatively equal financial positions.

The Second District Court of Appeal reversed this decision because the trial court inproperly ignored Husband’s bonus income.  It found that while the bonus income was not guaranteed, for thirteen years he had earned a bonus of $74,000.  While the appeals court agreed that past income had been divided relatively equally; it found the trial court failed to properly consider future earning capability. Specifically quoting another case

[w]here, as here, the record establishes that the parties’ past, present[,] and anticipated earnings are not substantially equivalent, it may be inequitable to force the lower earning party to deplete her share of the otherwise equally divided assets to pay attorney’s fees” Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

See, DiNardo v. DiNardo, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D323 (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.

In a typical divorce one of the major issues is “equitable distribution.” In Florida equity generally means a 50/50 split.  Although the courts do not have to evenly divide the property, the court must have legal justification for deviating from this standard. 

In a recent case the Husband had used an investment account worth approximately $50,000 to live on during the divorce case.  By the end of the case the account had no money left in it.  In ordering the equitable distribution the trial court ordered that account credited to the Husband.  However, the court did not make any provision for the fact that the Husband has literally spent the wife’s half of that account. The appellate court reversed the trial court stating:

the trial court’s attempt to offset Dan’s unauthorized expenditure by awarding him the worthless account was insufficient because Dan spent Ava’s half of the TD Ameritrade proceeds.”

Absent specific statutory reasons to deviate from an equitable distribution the trial court must order a near even split of the assets and liabilities.

See, Bryne v. Bryne, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D190 (Fla. 3rd 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.

More than likely yes, however the language in the agreement will be very important.  Florida’s Constitution provides for significant protections to homestead property provided certain requirements are met.  This protection extends to the sale of the home to purchase a new home.  However, in the case of a divorce, sometimes the parties agree to sell the marital home and divide the funds. 

Language in this agreement can be very important.  In a 1996 Fourth District Court of Appeal Case the husband agreed:

Judgments, Liens, and Lawsuits Satisfied: The Husband shall satisfy any and all outstanding judgments pending against him from his share of the proceeds received from the sale of the marital property.  Husband shall further be responsible for any and all potential claims, lawsuits, or judgments pending against him individually or in connection with his profession.”

Myers v. Lehrer, 671 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1996).  In that case the Court found that the Husband’s share of the proceeds were subject to claim by third party creditors.  However in a recent case out of the Third District Court of Appeal, the Court found different language to provide protection from creditors, specifically, from a previous marriage’s child support claim. In that case the parties agreed:

The parties agree that any lien or encumbrances on the marital home not specifically listed in the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement or Addendum thereto as liens or encumbrances to be paid shall be the sole responsibility of the Husband and shall be paid from his share of the proceeds.  This shall include, but not be limited to, lien(s) from the Husband’s attorney and any loans taken by the Husband except those listed in the Marital Settlement Agreement and Addendums thereto.”

Kerzner v. Kerzner, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2608 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011). In Kerzner, the Husband, once the liens were satisfied, intended to reinvest his share of the funds into a new home.  The Court found the lack of the language “any and all outstanding judgments pending against,” from the Myers, case made it distinguishable and Husband’s share was protected from creditors other than creditors of the marital home. 

As previously mentioned, the specific creditor at issue here was his previous Wife claiming past due child support.  This is an important secondary point from this case that even child support claims are unable to collect on Florida Homestead. . 

See, Kerzner v. Kerzner, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2608 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011). See also, Myers v. Lehrer, 671 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1996). 

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.

One of the most common issues for long duration marriages in Florida is the spouse who has a college degree and can work but who has not worked recently in the marriage.  For example, the parties may agree for one spouse to stay at home while the children are younger but agree that the spouse will return to work as the children grow up. As it becomes time for the spouse to return to work the marriage breaks down and at the time of divorce the stay at home spouse is alleging need of permanent alimony. 

While the case is obviously harder to prove because the status quo was that the spouse was not working, it is possible to decrease a spouse’s need based on their proven ability to contribute to their own support.  In a recent case from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, which includes Fort Myers, the Wife stayed home with the children and ran a small home business.  However, she had a nursing degree and admitted she could return to work full time.  The Court found that it was reasonable that she return to work and decreased her need based on her ability to earn full time income.  In these circumstances it is required to prove actual ability to earn and not purely a speculative ability to earn. 

See, Zambuto v. Zambuto, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2758 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011).

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.

The short answer is maybe.  Prior to considering the impact of the dissipation of marital funds the Court will need to consider a couple important factors.  First, when did this dissipation occur?  For example if the gambling occurred throughout the marriage it will be less likely to be an major factor in determining the division of property. However, if it occurred immediately around separation it is more likely to result in an offset of marital property. Second the Court will determine if there was a “marital purpose” to the dissipation.  Again, for example, if one spouse gambled while entertaining business clients which contributed to marital income, the dissipation will likely not favor an unequal offset.  However, if one spouse was an addict who simply wasted marital funds on gambling it could favor an unequal distribution.

In a recent case from just north of Fort Myers, the Court found that a Husband who gambled as part of entertaining clients throughout the entire marriage was serving a marital purpose.  As such the Court found it inappropriate to penalize him at the divorce for these actions. The Court found that while the Wife may have been frustrated by these actions throughout the marriage, the actions obviously served a marital purpose. 

See, Zambuto v. Zambuto, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2758 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011).

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.

After Ms. McCready’s hearing in Arkansas this week, WINK News Now returned to Martin Law Firm to further explain the legal implications involved with this case.  Attorney Steven Martin explained that Florida, which is the “home state,” would likely ultimately determine this matter.  However, the Arkansas Judge might delay the return of the child to Florida to investigate, if for example, there were allegations of abuse.

Ultimately this entire ordeal will likely be considered in determining the final custody arrangement within the entire scheme of the best interests of the child.  Attorney Martin speculates that while Ms. McCready may have won a small battle but that ultimately her tactics will not sway the case in her favor.

To see the WINK News story follow the following link where you will be connected directly to WINK News Now’s website: http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-12-07/Experts-say-Mindy-McCready-will-have-trouble-getting-custody

Steven E. Martin’s practice focuses on family law, civil litigation, business planning, estate planning and real property law. Mr. Martin is a Past President of the Cape Coral Bar Association and is an active member of the Lee County Bar Association. Mr. Martin is a member of the Florida Bar’s Judicial Administration and Evaluation Committee, and the Calusa Chapter of the American Inns of Court. Mr. Martin is admitted to practice in the state of Florida and in the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida. Mr. Martin practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida and in Collier County Florida in Naples.

WINK News Now asked Martin Law Firm attorney Dustin Butler to explain issues regarding child custody matters to local viewers.  Specifically, Mr. Butler explained what a “pick-up” order means.  “A pick-up order is essentially the court ordering law enforcement to bring a child back to this jurisdiction.  To issue a pick-up order the court needed to have already made a time-sharing or custody determination.”

Mr. Butler went on to explain that the overriding priority for Florida courts is the “best interests” of the child.  The court will consider what is in the best interests of the child above all other concerns.  When asked to explain how the court would view a parent who violated a court order resulting in a pickup order Mr. Butler was quoted saying “we’re dealing with parents not behaving properly and the court will consider that within the grand scheme of what is in the best interests of the child.” 

To see the WINK News story follow the following link where you will be connected directly to WINK News Now’s website:

http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-12-02/Missing-persons-flyer-issued-for-Zander-McCready

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.