In Temares v. Temares, the appellate court reversed an order for compulsory mental health and substance abuse evaluation. There was no good cause for the evaluations. The “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements for a compulsory evaluation require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is […]
Tag: appeal
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 […]
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 […]
Felipe v. Rincon
Felipe v. Rincon is a good reminder that certificates of service provide prima facie proof of actual service, and that actual service of pleadings is an indispensable component of due process. Here, a Default Final Judgment is set aside because the pleadings underlying it were not served, so there was no notice, even though the […]
Blevins v. Blevins
In Blevins v. Blevins, the trial court abused its discretion by granting modification based upon circumstances that were known at the time of the Final Judgment. The alleged change in circumstances was related to the distance of the Mother’s home from the child’s school, which was known at the time of the divorce. Blevins v […]
Hall v. Hall
In Hall v. Hall, the trial court denied the Husband’s motion to declare that the parties’ MSA was incomplete. The evidence presented did not support his claim of incompleteness. It appears that he was merely complaining that he made a bad deal. The fact that one party to an agreement apparently made a bad bargain […]