In a dissolution of marriage case, there are generally five major issues, which we identify according to the PEACE acronym. Those are: Parenting, Equitable distribution, Alimony, Child support, and Everything else. What you can expect is that many dissolution of marriage cases get resolved prior to going to trial, either at mediation or by entering into a Marital Settlement Agreement.

If the parties are splitting assets or money, it is important to keep in mind that the way those items are characterized can have consequences on whether they are enforceable by contempt. For example, if one party agrees to give to the other spouse a particular property or a sum of money, whether it is characterized as alimony, child support, or equitable distribution is very important. An obligation of support, such as alimony and child support, is enforceable by the Court through its contempt powers. However, failure to abide by an agreement which calls for a specific equitable distribution scheme is not enforceable by contempt.

But what happens if the agreement between the parties, or the final judgment adopting the same, does not specify whether a particular obligation is in the nature of support or part of equitable distribution? The court in Morrel v Morrel, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D22a (4th DCA 2013), was recently faced with this question. There, the former husband was required to maintain life insurance pursuant to a settlement agreement. When the former husband failed to do as he agreed, the former wife attempted to enforce the agreement through a contempt proceeding. The final judgment did not provide for alimony or other support for the wife. Because of this, but to no avail, the former husband argued that the life insurance was part of equitable distribution of property and therefore not enforceable by contempt. Due to evidence presented, the trial court agreed with the former wife that the life insurance was in the nature of support, and the 4th DCA affirmed. The result was that the husband was ordered “either to secure the insurance or to deposit cash of an equivalent amount in an account for the former wife’s benefit, should he predecease her.”

As you can see from the Morrel case, one way to avoid these situations is to understand the consequences of any provisions in the agreement, which you agree to sign. If you would like to avoid any ambiguity, be as precise and as clear as possible.

For more information, see Morrel v Morrel, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D22a (4th DCA 2013).

Liridona Sinani is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., who practices Family Law and Civil Litigation. She is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. She primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

The First District Court of Appeal recently addressed what must be proven to receive a modification of child support.  In this case, the Father alleged that he was paying child support in excess of the statutory guidelines and that the reduction in support would be in the best interests of the minor child.  However, the Father DID NOT allege that there was an involuntary and permanent change in circumstances.

Florida Statute § 61.14 addresses what must be proven to modify child support.

the circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes or the child who is a beneficiary of an agreement or court order… reaches majority after the execution of the agreement or the rendition of the order…” Fla. Stat. § 61.14

Failure to allege that the child has reached majority or that there has been a change in circumstances can result in your case being dismissed.  Given that the Court can only modify the child support back to the date of filing, a dismissal could cost you months of paying an increased child support.  Therefore it is very important that matters be properly plead when attempting a modification in child support.

See, VanLooven v. VanLooven, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2385a (Fla. 1d DCA 2012).

With the new year come new Family Law Rules of Procedure. In a recent Florida Supreme Court opinion, Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.740(f), which provided for a ten day review period for counsel who was not present when a mediation agreement is reached, was deleted. The rule previously stated that if counsel of record for any party was not present at mediation when an agreement was reached, such counsel has ten days from the service of the copy of the agreement to serve written objections on the mediator, unrepresented parties, and counsel. However, beginning January 1st, 2013, this provision is no longer available.

What exactly does this mean and how does it impact you? Admittedly, mediation can be a costly event. As such, parties under dire financial circumstances may choose to forgo having representation at mediation and instead opt for their attorney to review the agreement and file any objections later. With this new opinion, parties no longer have that 10 day safety net provided by Rule12.740(f). What this means is that in order to ensure that are fully advised of your rights prior to reaching any binding agreements it is best to have counsel present at mediation. However, if your financial circumstances forbid you from doing so, then make sure to incorporate a provision in your mediation agreement allowing for attorney review before you sign the agreement.

For more information, see Supreme Court of Florida Case No. SC11-1454.

Liridona Sinani is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses primarily in Family Law.  She is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. She primarily practices in Lee County, Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

Generally arrearages which have already vested cannot be modified upon filing a supplemental petition to modify child support.  When one has experienced a substantial change in circumstances which justifies child support to be modified by at least 15% or $50, whichever is more, the Court may modify the child support.  However, modification can only occur upon the filing of a supplemental petition.  Once child support payments become due the support becomes a vested right and generally cannot be modified retroactively.  There are a few exceptions to this rule when compelling circumstances and proper pleadings justify a modification of the arrearages.  Primarily, the exception is limited to cases where a party is incarcerated preventing them from filing the modification and the compelling reason is proper plead in the pleadings.

However, even within this narrow exception, the Court may still deny the modification of vested arrearages.  For example, in a recent case out of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the Court found it improper to modify the child support arrearages even when the subject children had already reached adulthood.  The Court found that the father should have filed a supplemental petition to modify child support upon his incarceration and not after his release.  Further the Court cited numerous cases standing for the principle that child support rights vest at the time the payments are due. 

Thus accrued child support, or child support in arrears, become vested rights of the payee and vested obligations of the payor that are not subject to retroactive modifications.” Puglia v. Puglia, 600 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

It is very important that when a substantial change in circumstances has occurred justifying a modification of child support that the supplemental petition for modification be filed immediately.  Once the payment has become due, it is highly unlikely the Court will modify the arrearage.

See, Cortina v. Lorie, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2037 (Fla. 5th 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, for an adoption to be valid, the parental rights of the biological parents must first be terminated. For those rights to be terminated, voluntary or involuntary termination of rights must occur. When rights are involuntarily terminated, it is usually through a dependency case or child abuse. Parental rights may be terminated after a full evidentiary hearing and a determination by clear and convincing evidence that each person required to give consent, among other things, has been properly served notice of the proceedings and has been determined to have abandoned the child, or failed to either file a written answer or appear at the hearing.

But, what happens when one spouse tries to give the child up for adoption without the consent of the other spouse? What procedure must the trial court follow in a petition for termination of parental rights? This similar fact pattern appeared in a recent opinion by the 5^th District Court of Appeals where the mother tried to give the child to an Adoption Agency without telling the father or getting the father’s consent, and lying to the Adoption Agency about it. The adoptive parents filed a petition to adopt the child, alleging that the father had abandoned the child. At the hearing, the trial court found that the father had not abandoned the child and no other evidence existed to terminate his parental rights. However, the trial court proceeded to adjudicate the child dependent and ordered the father to pay child support, have visitation with the child, and enter into a case plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying adoptive parents’ petition to terminate father’s parental rights but reversed the trial court’s order adjudicating the child dependent and ordering the father to pay child support, have visitation with the child, and creating a case plan, finding that the trial court should have dismissed the petition to terminate parental rights entirely.

According to Florida Statute 63.089(5),

[i]f the court does not find by clear and convincing evidence that parental rights of a parent should be terminated pending adoption, the court must dismiss the petition [and] [f]urther proceedings … must be brought in a separate … dependency action.

The appellate court noted that after the trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to support termination of father’s parental rights, the court had no choice but to dismiss the petition. According to the appellate court,

[t]he statute is clear that any dependency proceedings would have to be filed separately in a dependency action pursuant to chapter 39.

See V.M. v. Home at Last Adoption Agency, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1733 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2012).

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.

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.

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.

The Florida Department of Revenue may intervene in child support cases to ensure that a minor child is receiving the care and support he or she is entitled to by law. Paternity is presumed when a husband and wife have a child within the bonds of marriage. However, if the parents are not married, the Department of Revenue may still collect child support from a father who may or may not be the actual biological father of a child.

A father may contest paternity, but the courts will always look to what is in the best interests of the child “[T]he courts require a determination of the child’s best interests. Some circumstances require specific procedures to be followed in evaluating a child’s best interests. For example, if paternity is contested, the child’s legitimacy is at issue, and the legal father has not had notice or an opportunity to be heard, the trial court is required to appoint a guardian ad litem and hear from the guardian and all the parties before proceeding.”

“A trial court may consider the child’s need for support. If the court determines that there is no compelling interest in overcoming the presumption, it must dismiss the paternity action against the putative father.”

The state has an interest in preserving parental rights, but also in ensuring that children are supported. Because of this, the court will look to the best interest of the children in any case involving minor children and family law.

See Dept. of Revenue on behalf of Garcia v. Iglesias & Garcia, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D160.

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.

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.