Agreements:
Johnston v. Johnston, 391 So.3d 538 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Prenuptial agreement limited marital estate to property obtained during the marriage that is clearly traceable to income earned during the marriage or expressly provided for by agreement. Agreement also provided that all property jointly titled at time of marriage shall be marital unless law required wife to be on title, then parties would execute agreement to establish intent. Husband sought a $187k carve-out from a jointly-titled property, which represented non-marital monies husband contributed to acquisition. The property was in joint names and the parties did not execute a document establishing their intent. The Appellate court declined husband’s invitation to apply the “ejusdem generis” rule of construction. Judge Alissa Ellison affirmed for declaring entire property to be marital.
Hurley v. Veon, 390 So.3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Former husband transferred company ownership to son prior to divorce. Marital settlement agreement provided parties will divide any post-judgment monies incident to husband’s “ownership” in company. Former husband had falling out with son and sued company, and was awarded sums for past work, monies for use of software former husband created, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to a prevailing party provision. In this matter, Court had to determine if former husband has an equitable ownership in the company since the divorce. Florida has no clear standard whether someone is an equitable or beneficial owner of assets nominally owned by another. Equitable ownership is a fact-specific inquiry. Factors to consider: 1) control, 2) family relationships, and 3) receipt of benefits. Trial abused its discretion finding the former husband had an equitable interest under these particular facts. Judge Susan Stacy affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Attorneys’ Fees:
Johnston v. Johnston, 391 So.3d 538 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Husband waived the right to challenge temporary attorney’s fees by waiting until the final judgment was entered to appeal the temporary relief order. Appeal dismissed as untimely. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(B) and 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b). Judge Alissa Ellison affirmed.
Disestablishment of Paternity:
Gragg-Rivera v. Gragg, 390 So.3d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Trial court erred disestablishing paternity sua sponte when it already had been established by another state. A parent/child relationship established by a decree from another state is recognized unless such state’s rights flowing therefrom are not contemplated by or are repugnant to the laws of the State of Florida. Judge Robert M. Foster affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Grandparent Visitation:
Mattingly & Mattingly v. Hatfield, 395 So.3d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). Grandmother obtained visitation rights from Kentucky. Parents moved to Florida and then divorced. Grandmother intervened in Florida divorce proceedings and was awarded timesharing. Parties filed modification to eliminate Grandmother’s visitation rights based on Florida law. Trial court was affirmed for dismissing modification action because divorce was anticipated and not a material change. The right to visitation is far broader in Kentucky then in Florida. Kentucky law conflicts with Florida. Florida courts have interpreted Florida’s Constitution to include the natural parents’ right to rear children without government interference. However, Florida must respect Kentucky judgment as a consequence of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Barbara K. Hobbs affirmed. *Replaces 49 Fla.L.Weekly D492a.
Injunctions:
Thomas v. Li, 391 So.3d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). The following facts did not form a sufficient basis for entry of a domestic violence injunction: husband placed a loaded gun on table and told wife “if she really wanted to hurt herself here is something to do it with.” Husband then left and told wife “when he comes back, he hopes she will be dead.” When the husband returned, he expressed disappointment the floor was not covered with blood and the wife was not dead. The next day the husband entered the room with a large kitchen knife and told wife “if she wanted to hurt herself, this would do more damage.” Later, upon the wife’s return to the marital residence she found her belongings packed up in bags with notes all over it. The husband also scribbled numerous things on the wife’s mattress that wished ill on the wife and hoping bad things would happen to her. The messages were angry and accusatory, but not threatening. For two months, husband sent wife Emails, sometimes up to five times a day. The substance of Emails lamented the demise of the parties’ relationship, blaming the wife, and to express sadness and betrayal, but were not threatening. Domestic violence injunction entered by Judge Susan F. Greenhawt reversed.
Whalen v. Choquehuanca, 394 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2024). Protective injunction reversed because technical issues impeded electronic recording of the full evidentiary hearing. Petitioner invited to refile injunction if warranted. Judge Elisabeth Espinosa reversed.
Parenting:
Landero v. Landero, 391 So.3d 650 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). An internal inconsistency in a final judgment may warrant reversal and remand for clarification. Here, parenting plan provided it intended father would have visitation every Christmas and Christmas eve but the schedule provided the Father would only have these days two times over six years. Judge Kevin Bruning affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Mendez v. Mendez & Lowe, 390 So.3d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Default judgment of paternity and parenting plan reversed when court entered default judgment without giving the mother an opportunity to be heard, and Court failed to make any findings of fact concerning the parenting plan and whether it was in the minor child’s best interest. Judge Darren Shull reversed.
Paternity:
Rivera v. Salas, 391 So.3d 639 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). “Do-it- yourself” artificial insemination case. Donor provided sperm to lesbian couple who created life at home as opposed to a laboratory setting. Trial court affirmed for dismissing donor’s paternity action for lack of standing. F.S. §742.14 is clear on its face. Donors of sperm, eggs, or pre-embryos have no standing to assert parental rights with respect to children conceived and born as a result of the donation with two exceptions; 1) members of commissioning couple, and 2) fathers who have executed a preplanned adoption agreement. Fact that this was a “do-it-yourself” insemination does not alter fact male was a “donor” under F.S. §742.14. Certified conflict with Enrique v. Velaquez, 350 So.3d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) which provides F.S. §742.14 only applies to paternity actions where child was born as a result of assisted reproductive technology. Interesting discussion. Judge Lindsay M. Alvarez affirmed.
Procedure:
DiGiorgio v. DiGiorgio, 389 So.3d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Trial court entered parenting plan after the party filed notice of appeal. Trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter order that substantially changes final judgment after a party files a notice of appeal. Judge Thomas R. Eineman affirmed but remanded to enter parenting plan.
Support:
Landero v. Landero, 391 So.3d 650 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2024). Hotly contested divorce. Court found both parties not to be credible. Trial court erred factoring $835 for monthly health insurance premiums for child into child support guidelines when child was on Medicaid. Judge Kevin Bruning affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Gragg-Rivera v. Gragg, 390 So.3d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Trial court erred by failing to make sufficient findings concerning child support to permit meaningful review. Attaching child support guidelines is not a sufficient substitute for required findings of fact. Judge Robert M. Foster affirmed in part, reversed in part.
