In Corcoran v. Corcoran, the 5th DCA remanded the final judgment for required findings to be made on four separate issues where they were missing: alimony, attorney’s fees, equitable distribution, and shared parental responsibility. Corcoran v Corcoran
Category: Appeals
Berg v. Young
Berg v. Young concerns the interpretation of a prenuptial agreement. Ultimately the 4th DCA reversed the finding regarding a denial of attorney’s fees because the prevailing party should have been awarded his fees based upon a plain reading of the agreement. Also reversed was the award to the wife of attorney’s fees based upon section […]
Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini
In Vaelizadeh v. Hossaini the 4th DCA tackled the issue of an untimely objection to relocation. The trial court found that the Father’s objection to the proposed relocation was untimely and thus entered a final judgment allowing the relocation, but the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for five reasons: The father had filed […]
Suarez v. Orta
In Suarez v. Orta, the trial court adopted a report and recommendations by a general magistrate over timely-filed objections. This was error. Apparently the trial court did not treat the objections as Exceptions, focusing on the title of the document rather than its substance. Pleadings by pro se litigants should only be defined by their […]
Dorworth v. Dorworth
Alimony and Equitable Distribution of marital assets and debts are tools that courts can, and often do, use to achieve equity. So long as there is competent substantial evidence supporting findings of valuation, and the required statutory findings regarding ED and alimony are made, courts have great discretion to fashion distribution and support schemes that […]
Testa v. Testa
In Testa v. Testa the appellate court reminds us that before imposing the sanction of barring a litigant from pro se filings, the trial court must first issue an order to show cause and provide notice to the pro se litigant and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Testa v Testa
Hooker v. Hooker
An interspousal gift is established by showing “ ‘(1) donative intent, (2) delivery or possession of the gift, and (3) surrender of dominion and control of the gift.’ “ Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Mills v. Mills, 845 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)). The burden is […]
Kyriacou v. Kyriacou
In Kyriacou v. Kyriacou, the appellate court roundly criticizes the trial court. The trial court made an unequal equitable distribution, but in so doing made no mandatory findings relative the statutory factors of 61.075. The only finding that the trial court made was that the parties had an unequal ability (in the Husband’s favor) to […]
Robinson v. McDonald
Robinson v. McDonald does not explicitly say this, but it appears that the appellate court is giving tacit approval to a trial court entering a child support amount and reserving jurisdiction to change that amount when timesharing reaches 50/50. Apparently there is a 50/50 timesharing schedule with a transitional period that has been ordered, and […]
Weaver v. Weaver
Weaver v. Weaver is an equitable distribution case. The trial court’s distribution was unequal, and granted the Wife partial interest in a non-marital asset of the Husband due to enhancement during the marriage because of the contribution of marital funds. This was error because there was no substantial, competent evidence supporting the enhancement of the […]