In the following alimony case, the trial court erred by finding that the Wife did not have a need for alimony. This was a long-term marriage, and in such cases an initial presumption in favor of permanent alimony arises. The long-term duration of the parties’ marriage, coupled with the potential future needs of the Former […]
Month: October 2014
Holiday Timesharing
The holiday season is fast approaching. If you are currently in the middle of a divorce or paternity case, you may not have a holiday timesharing schedule in place yet. Holiday timesharing temporarily replaces your everyday schedule. In other words, even if you have a regular timesharing schedule that you follow, if there is not […]
What Is The Significance Of Filing A Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage As It Relates To Assets And Liabilities?
According to FS 61.075(7), the cut-off date for determining marital assets and liabilities is the date of filing, unless there is a written agreement otherwise. So, if you are concerned that your spouse may acquire debt for which you will become liable, filing the petition will establish the date where that cannot happen. All assets […]
Options To Challenge A Final Judgment: A Complex Area Of Law
Have you recently gone to trial in your case and received a final judgment? Do you not agree with the judgment? Do you want the judgment overturned? You have several options: 1) Appeal – Under the rules of appellate procedure, you have 30 days from the date the judgment was rendered (ie – the date […]
Kohl v. Kohl
In the following interspousal tort case, the Wife attempted to state a cause of action against the Husband for negligent infliction of a sexually transmitted disease, in this case HPV. The complaint is dismissed on two grounds, but the court finds that the cause of action is generally viable, although there must be allegations that […]
Williams v. Williams
In the following case, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees without making the required findings and without considering that the Husband did not have the ability to pay. Also the trial court was reversed because it awarded the dependency deduction to the wife despite the fact that she did not […]