Call : 786-539-4935
Click Here to Email Us:

If a Change in Circumstances Supports a Change in Child Support You Need to Act Sooner Than Later

June 27, 2017 by  
Filed under Uncategorized

.

.

Where there has been a substantial change in circumstances like a significant change in income or a change in time-sharing that would justify a change in a child support obligation the Court can only modify the obligation back to the date of the filing of the petition for modification and not before it.  Accordingly, a party seeking a modification will want to file a petition for modification to preserve the date the Court can go back to when modifying child support.  You can not be reimbursed for child support payments made before a supplemental petition for modification was filed regardless of how unfair it may seem in some cases.

If you need to seek modification of your child support obligation or time-sharing schedule you should consult with a lawyer as soon as possible so as to make sure the Court can go back as close as possible to the date of the change in circumstances.  If you need advice in relation to the modification of child support contact us to discuss your situation.

To Successfully Oppose Relocation With a Child the Promise of a Change in Future Behavior is Not Enough

June 13, 2017 by  
Filed under Uncategorized

relocating with a child

 

 

In Solomon v. Solomon the Former Husband had a gambling problem and some mental health issues.  The burden of proof under the Florida Relocation Statute, Florida Statute 61.13001, was initially on the Former Wife to show that the relocation was supported by the statutory factors and in the best interests of the minor child. Once established the burden of proof would then fall on the Former Husband to establish that the proposed relocation is not in the best interests of the minor child.

The trial court considered it to be in the best interests of the minor child to be able to relocate with the Former Wife to Virginia , however, the trial court then decided that the Former Husband had overcome the presumption in favor of relocation being in the best interests of the child through a promise to temper his gambling and address his mental health issues in the future.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida reversed the trial Court’s decision stating that a promise of future changes was not enough,  that a determination needed to have been made in the best interests of the child at the time of the final hearing, and that it must be supported by competent and substantial evidence.

If you need help from an attorney in a relocation case call us for a consultation on (786) 539-4935.

Grandparent Entitled to Makeup Time-Sharing (Visitation) Where Out Of State Time-Sharing Judgment Was Entitled to Full Faith and Credit

June 8, 2017 by  
Filed under Uncategorized

.

.

While the Florida Statutes do not provide for grandparents to have time-sharing like parents, an out of state Judgment domesticated in Florida is entitled to full faith and credit and can be enforced in Florida.   The Fifth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida just reversed a trial court decision that did not provide for make up time-sharing for a grandparent based upon the argument that the Florida Statutes do not provide such a remedy to grandparents. The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed reasoning that restricting the remedies available to a grandparent would be tantamount to not giving full faith and credit to the out of state judgment and that the remedy is available to enforce an out of state judgment. So just because Florida does not itself provide for grandparents to have time-sharing as if they were parents it does not mean that an out of state decision that they are entitled to such time-sharing shall not be given full faith and credit and enforced.

The Court stated:

“The Florida Supreme Court stated in no uncertain terms that the Colorado grandparent visitation order—which was entered in compliance with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA) —is by the express terms of the PKPA subject to the commands of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Ledoux-Nottingham, 210 So. 3d at 1221. In order to give the Colorado order full faith and credit, the grandparents are entitled to enforce their grandparent visitation rights in Florida. The remedy provided in the Florida Statutes due to a party’s refusal to honor timesharing rights is make-up timesharing to the nonoffending party under section 61.13(4)(c). See § 61.13(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013) (stating a court shall award make-up timesharing where the refusal is “without proper cause”). In this sense, make-up visitation “square[s] the loss of past visitation rights.” Morales v. Morales, 915 So. 2d 247, 249 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Furthermore, section 61.526, titled “Duty to enforce,” authorizes the award of “any remedy” to enforce another state’s child custody determination. § 61.526, Fla. Stat. (2013). We construe these provisions together, and conclude that the grandparents are entitled to pursue the remedy of make-up visitation. As a result, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for determination of the issue of make-up visitation. The trial court must determine whether it would be in the children’s best interest for the grandparents to receive make-up visitation and if so, order timesharing in a manner fitting the best interests of the children. See Cheek v. Hesik, 73 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).”

Stalking Injunction Reversed, Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence

June 6, 2017 by  
Filed under Uncategorized

.

.

There are different kinds of injunctions for protection against stalking available under Florida law.  You should consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.

Where a person seeks a stalking injunction for protection against repeat violence (Fla. Stat. 784.046(2)) it is necessary that there is more than one incident of violence or stalking for an injunction to be issued and be upheld on appeal.  One of the incidents must have occurred within 6 months of the petition for injunction.  Stalking itself requires repeat behavior, so following someone once does not qualify as stalking.

In the case of Kriebel v. Piedrahita the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida revered an injunction that had been issued by the trial court for protection against stalking and repeat violence because there was only one incident of violence and one incident of following  the petitioner in the record. As the following of the petitioner had only occurred once the appellate court decided it did not constitute stalking which requires repeated following, harassing, or cyber stalking.

If you need legal advice concerning an injunction, to obtain one, or defend against one, contact our attorneys to schedule a consultation.

 

Alimony Reduced Where Recipient Wife Voluntarily Cut Expenses

April 21, 2017 by  
Filed under Uncategorized

.
.
.
.

Alimony can be reduced if the receiving party voluntarily reduces their expenses.  Courts have considered some voluntary changes in circumstances, such as retirement, as permitting modification of alimony depending upon the totality of the circumstances. Also, courts have reduced an alimony obligation where the substantial change in circumstances has been a reduction of a receiving spouse’s expenses.

 

In the case of Regan v. Regan, the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding a voluntary change in circumstances had occurred and reducing alimony to the former wife from $ 9,000 a month, which was agreed to in a mediated settlement agreement, to $ 7,800 a month because the former wife significantly cut her expenses by selling the marital home, moving to a different state, and purchasing a smaller home.

 

If you have questions about a modification of an alimony obligation in your case contact us to schedule a consultation.

Next Page »

Disclaimer: The Law Offices of Robert Hanreck, P.A. is based in Miami , Florida and serves clients throughout the State including Miami-Dade and Broward counties. We are licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. This website is intended for informational purposes only and is not meant to constitute legal advice, or solicit clients outside of the State of Florida.