In Dills v. Perez, the Florida 5th District Court of Appeals found the trial court had committed reversible error where it terminated the Former Husband’s alimony obligation on remarriage of the Former Wife.
While Florida Statute Section 61.08(7) mandates that an award of durational alimony terminates on death or remarriage of the party receiving alimony, in this case the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement stated that durational alimony that would be non-modifiable for 48 months and the Former Wife remarried within the 48 month period. The Appellate Court recognized that the parties had agreed to relief beyond what the statute would have otherwise provided for but it was permissible and binding for the parties to do so.
As the parties had specifically included the language that the durational alimony would be non-modifiable during the the 48 Month period the 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the lower Court decision allowing for the termination of the alimony obligation. Had the parties not included such language the alimony obligation would have terminated upon remarriage as per the statute.
If you are going through a divorce, considering a settlement, or facing modification of alimony it is important you understand your legal rights and the intricacies of your situation so contact us for a consultation to discuss the circumstances of your case.
Before a divorce both parents are legally the natural guardians of their minor children and have joint and equal rights regarding time-sharing and decision making. The same is not true where a child is born out of wedlock, in which case a paternity action must be filed to establish the parental rights of the father or non-birth parent.
Shared parental responsibility is where both parents are legally determined to have equal legal rights to make decisions concerning their children’s health, education, and welfare. Sole parental responsibility is where one parent, and not the other parent, is legally empowered to make decisions concerning the minor child. The Court also has the option to grant one parent ultimate responsibility over specific areas of a child’s welfare, even where shared parental responsibility is ordered.
Florida public policy favors shared parental responsibility. The goal of shared parental responsibility is to encourage both parents to be fully involved in their children’s lives. Only where shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to a child will the Court establish sole parental responsibility.
In C.N. v. I.G.C. the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the statute governing modification of parenting plans neither authorizes nor requires a court to set forth specific steps necessary to reestablish time-sharing upon modification of a preexisting parenting plan. Prior to this ruling there were a line of cases requiring that, if a parent’s time-sharing is restricted, a court should specify what that parent would need to do to be able to regain time-sharing. The Florida Supreme Court reasoned that there was no such requirement in the applicable Florida Statutes.
“Requiring the court to give concrete steps would essentially entitle a parent to be restored to the pre-modification status quo, albeit after satisfying court-identified conditions. Such an entitlement is inconsistent with section 61.13(2)(c)11., which says that “[t]here is no presumption … for or against any specific time-sharing schedule when creating or modifying the parenting plan of the child.” It is also inconsistent with section 61.13(2)(c)2.b., which says that the “court shall order sole parental responsibility for a minor child to one parent, with or without time-sharing with the other parent if it is in the best interests of the minor child.”
And perhaps most basically, it is inconsistent with the statute’s overarching “best interests of the child” standard itself. Depending on the circumstances, it might not be reasonable for a court to attempt to devise conditions that would lead to a restoration of the pre-modification status quo. Yet the rule advocated by the mother would require the court to specify a pathway to restoration in every case.
In light of these aspects of chapter 61, a court does not err simply for finally modifying a preexisting parenting plan without giving a parent concrete steps to restore any lost time-sharing.”
While not going so far as to say that a court may not include how a parent can regain time-sharing the Florida Supreme Court stated that a Final Judgment is not deficient where it does not include how a parent can regain time-sharing.
You can get an annulment instead of a divorce if you can establish to the satisfaction of the court that the marriage was legally void, or legally voidable and has not been ratified. However, the annulment process is more complicated and more expensive than an uncontested divorce so in addition to the legal requirements you would want to consider if there is a special circumstance that makes it worth while to deal with additional complexity and additional expense to have the court determine that the marriage was not legally valid rather than just divorcing.
Annulment is where a marriage is void or voidable and the parties seek to be returned to the status of being single as if no marriage had taken place. A void marriage is a marriage that has a defect that can not be made valid by the actions of another party. A voidable marriage is a marriage that there was a legal impediment to the marriage at the time it was entered into that makes the marriage voidable but the impediment to marriage could be removed and the marriage ratified.
There is no specific statutory requirement for an annulment, so the courts look to case law in making a determination as to if a marriage can be annulled. Examples of circumstances in which an annulment may be granted include; where the other party has concealed his/her true identity before and after the marriage; where a party was legally married to someone else at the time of the marriage; where a party refuses to cohabitate or consummate the marriage; where the parties were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage; where there was duress; where a party was pregnant with the child of another party at the time of the marriage; or where a party was underage to legally marry. The burden is on the party seeking annulment to establish the grounds for the annulment.
Florida is a no fault divorce state and practically favors divorce over annulment. The divorce process in Florida can be a relative simple one depending on the issues in a case and whether the parties are in agreement or seek to litigate those issues, while the annulment process will always include having to establish that the marriage was void, or voidable and has not been ratified, to the satisfaction of the Court. It depends on your specific situation whether an annulment offers you any advantages over a divorce. If you have questions about annulment please call us to discuss your situation on (786) 539-4935.
The short answer is: Yes, you can still get a divorce. The Clerk of Court is still accepting divorce filings and judges have established procedures to allow the cases before them to progress without in person appearances. Some judges have conducted hearings by zoom, and in uncontested divorces some have permitted the parties to submit affidavits rather than requiring the appearance of a divorcing party at a hearing as would normally have been required.
If you would like an attorney to assist you get a divorce during the Corona-virus COVID-19 pandemic we are here to assist you.
Th short answer is yes. Sometimes domestic violence injunctions are only entered for a certain period of time and expire automatically, obviously a one year injunction expires after a year. But sometimes a permanent injunction is entered with no set expiration date. Such an injunction stays in place through the passage of time and is an ongoing blemish on your record. Most people do not realize that a permanent injunction can still be dissolved or set aside in time, and/or under the right circumstances.
To dissolve an injunction against domestic violence the enjoined party must show changed circumstances and demonstrate that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose. In determining whether an injunction continues to serve a valid purpose the trial court must consider whether Petitioner reasonably maintains a continuing fear of becoming the victim of domestic violence. This determination can be fact specific but the more time that passes without anything happening that would lead anyone to reasonably believe an injunction is necessary the ore chance there is that it might be dissolved by a court upon the request of the enjoined party.
Once before the court on a motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction the injunction should be set aside if the evidence presented is not legally sufficient to show that petitioner’s fear of domestic violence is objectively reasonable. The possibility of future contact between the parties is not, without more, sufficient to conclude that the circumstances underlying the injunction remain the same. Nor is a Petitioner’s speculative fear of future violence legally insufficient to justify the never-ending existence of injunction.
So if a domestic violence injunction has been entered against you, and you want to have it set aside or dissolved, contact us to arrange a consultation so we can discuss your circumstance with you and evaluate your options to do so.
Did you know that there is a Pandemic and Influenza Benchguide addressing legal issues concerning quarantine and isolation in Florida?
There is! I certainly hope it never has to be used.
The Benchguide, designed for a Judge, addresses legal issues associated with quarantine and isolation. It provides links to relevant Statutes and Code. Additionally, it presents legal authorities that may be useful to judges in an influenza pandemic.
While we may watch what is happening in China and think that mandatory quarantine would never happen in the United States, nobody is going to be forcefully quarantined or dragged from their homes here, there is legal authority out there set forth in the Benchguide that may provide the framework for exactly that, and that is before the Courts are closed!
Here is the Benchguide:
Can you imagine someone distributing or displaying pornographic or sexual pictures of you through the internet?
Revenge porn can be devastating to its victims lives and their emotional well being.
In Florida, there are very specific laws in relation to what constitutes cyber sexual harassment. In layman’s terms, laws against revenge porn.
First, it can be criminally prosecuted. It appears that there have been a small number of criminal prosecutions under the revenge porn law since it has been on the books, approximately half of which resulted in the dismissal of the case, and half of which lead to an adjudication.
To address revenge porn criminally you will want to gather all the evidence you can and go to the police to make a report. Hopefully, the police will then conduct a criminal investigation which can lead to potential criminal prosecution by the State Attorney.
Under many circumstances a victim or effected person can also seek a civil injunction for protection against cyber stalking to address revenge porn similar to an injunction that would be available to a stalking victim. An injunction to stop revenge porn acts like distributing or displaying pornographic or sexual pictures of you.
Florida statutory law defines cyberstalking as:
1.Engaging in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or
While not all encompassing the statutory definition of cyberstalking is quite broad and has been found to include many types of revenge porn.
If you feel you have been the victim of cyberstalking or revenge porn and need an injunction to protect you please contact us to discuss the specifics of your situation and how we maybe able to help you.
Where an order or judgment in a divorce or paternity case requires a party to pay uncovered medical expenses one might think that to be enforceable by contempt.
Not necessarily. Enforceability thorough contempt may depend on exactly what the order or judgment states and how specific it is.
For instance an order of contempt has been overuled on appeal where the order violated was not specific enough, stating only that the Former Husband bring current within 90 days those uncovered medical expenses for which he had received documentation.
While the trial court found the language sufficient to find the Former Husband in contempt when the Former Husband did not pay the 5th District Court of Appeals held that the language of the order was not sufficiently specific as to what the Husband was to pay to find the Former Husband in contempt for non payment.
If you have questions about contempt proceedings, an order, or judgment and enforceable please contact us to set up a time to discuss your specific circumstances.