Appeals:
Fernandez v. Kivimaki, 393 So.3d 267 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Former wife appealed final judgment of modification and motion for contempt as “non-final” orders. Court lacked jurisdiction to review final judgment as it was a final order. Order on contempt confirmed. Judge G. Gregory Green affirmed in part, appeal dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction.
Hessert v. Hessert, 395 So.3d 1115 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). Appellant improperly filed a petition for writ of certiorari on an omnibus order regarding a number of motions. Many could have been appealable as non-final orders. 6th DCA sorted it out and treated issues as if the proper remedy had been sought. Petition of writ of certiorari denied, and Judge Craig A. McCarthy affirmed.
Burrell v. Burrell, 393 So.3d 773 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2024). Order on motion for pick-up order and temporary timesharing affirmed because Appellant failed to provide a transcript. Judge Abby Cynamon affirmed.
Wells v. Wells, 392 So.3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). The former husband, who was represented by an attorney for this appeal, purports to seek direct appellate review from a variety of orders entered during his divorce proceedings. He appeals all orders as final judgments. Multiple orders appealed were properly dismissed as untimely. Others were affirmed when initial brief failed to show a preliminary basis for reversal. Judge Darlene F. Dickey affirmed in part, appeal dismissed in part.
Attorney’s Fees:
Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 395 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). Order awarding attorney’s fees that did not include findings that hours and rate were reasonable, was affirmed even without a transcript. Sixth District Court of Appeal makes a compelling argument why findings are not needed, and certified the conflict. Judge Kelly P. Butz affirmed, conflict certified.
Feliz v. Negron-Chaves, 392 So.3d 280 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). In awarding fees, trial court listed attorneys and rates, and overall hours for the firm, as opposed to hours by each attorney or each hourly rate. Remanded for further findings. Judge G. Gregory Green affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Izard v. Bois, 391 So.3d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Order simply awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to F.S. §57.105 reversed, as it failed to make statutorily required findings to support the award. Trial court must determine if the non-moving party knew or should have known a claim or defense is not supported by the facts or application of current-existing law. In other words, the Court must find it is frivolous. Judge Dina Keever-Agrama reversed.
Equitable Distribution:
Molina v. Molina, 392 So.3d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Trial court’s finding of misconduct and waste reversed when wife provided unrebutted testimony that she depleted account on household bills, living expenses and her attorney’s fees. Judge Laurie E. Buchanan reversed.
Bellegarde v. Bellegarde, 392 So.3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Trial court erred valuing the marital residence at the time of trial, as opposed to the date of separation. Since separation, husband moved in with another women, and wife paid all expenses related to the home during pendency of case, and husband made no financial contributions. Judge Darren Dunifon Shull affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Saxon v. Saxon, 393 So.3d 768 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Trial court erred reserving jurisdiction for five years to determine equitable distribution of any prospective to the wife’s mother, when there was no record evidence of any unquantified, unliquidated or future debt owed by the parties. Judge Steve D. Berlin affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Griffin v. Griffin, 392 So.3d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). During divorce, marital residence was valued for distribution purposes. The wife received the house, and the husband received an equalizing payment. After the divorce, the value of the house increased. Without seeking to set aside the judgment, pro se, the husband filed a motion to adjust the value of the home and increase his equalizing payment, which was properly denied. If the court awards a cash payment for equitable distribution, whether to be paid in full or in installments, the full amount of the award shall vest when the judgment is entered, and shall not terminate on death or remarriage, unless parties agreed otherwise, but shall be treated as a debt owed by the obligor or the obligor’s estate to the obligee’s estate. Judge Lacey Powell Clarke affirmed.
Income:
Campbell v. Jara, 392 So.3d 1104 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Trial court erred imputing income based on the finding Father could work 40 hours a week. This was not supported under the evidence, when Father worked 25 hours a week, testified that’s all his employer would allow, and that it was a building position that did not previously exist. When asked why Husband could not work more hours, Father said he was accommodating for his child and going to the doctors. Father was not questioned about accommodations for child’s need or frequency of doctor visits, whether they required travel or any other extenuating circumstance that might impede Father from pursuing additional work. Judge Alicia Polk reversed in part, affirmed in part.
Delosreyes v. Delosreyes, 392 So.3d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Trial court was not required to determine whether the husband was voluntarily unemployed, when wife did not seek imputation in her pleadings. The trial court erred imputing capital gains from a one-time sale of property. Determination of income for alimony is different than determining it for child support. For alimony, it includes all sources of income including from investments. Judge Karen A Miller affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Injunctions:
Hoover v. Peak o/b/o C.P.,392 So.3d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). Shooting a roman candle which hit a child on the 4th of July and caused a minor injury, and passing child four times in the hall at school orientation does not support permanent injunction against stalking. Judge William F. Stone reversed.
Mcpherson v. Samuel, 392 So.3d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Trial court erred denying a continuance on a final stalking injunction hearing when the Respondent had pre-planned international travel. Appellate court looks at three factors when reviewing a denial of a motion for continuance; 1) does denial result in an injustice for movant, 2) whether motion was based on dilatory tactic and 3) whether opposing party would be prejudiced. Judge Michael G. Kaplan reversed.
Parenting:
Campbell v. Jara, 392 So.3d 1104 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Father appealed paternity judgment that gave Mother timesharing exceeding that of an equal distribution of overnights. Judgment affirmed as parties initially tried a 50/50 schedule and Judge made detailed findings. Judge Alicia Polk reversed in part, affirmed in part.
Procedure:
Lavinder v. Bryson, 394 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). Wife established an Alabama decree as a Florida order, and sought contempt for unpaid alimony. Trial court properly denied the motion applying Alabama law which allows an alimony obligation to be satisfied by the obligee’s receipt of obligor’s social security benefits. However, trial court erred terminating the alimony obligation. Florida may not modify another court’s spousal support award by a tribunal of another state or foreign country that has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over order. Judge John L. Miller, Jr., affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 393 So.3d 796 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2024). Fundamental error of denial of due process may be raised for the first time on appeal. Wife appealed a default judgment claiming not to have received notice. Judgment affirmed without prejudice to allow the Wife to file a 12.440 motion to vacate the final order. Judge Bonne L. Helms affirmed.
Dowers v. Johnson, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D1631 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Final paternity judgment reversed as it was irreconcilable with the parenting plan. Final judgment denied relocation, however parenting plan allowed it. Judge Sara Alijewicz reversed.
Support:
Chavez v. Fla. Dept. of Revenue, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D1756 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2024). Appellant failed to participate in administrative hearing, and therefore failed to preserve any error concerning how DOR calculated his income.
Delosreyes v. Delosreyes, 392 So.3d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Trial court affirmed for excluding 4 months from retroactive child support. A trial court abuses discretion when it denies retroactive support when there is a demonstrated need and ability. Here, the wife failed to present any evidence for need during those 4 months. Judge Karen A Miller affirmed in part, reversed in part.
