Fall Edition 2015

For this fall edition of the Men’s Rights Blog, in the spirit of Halloween, the following is a list of what to do, and not to do, during family law litigation. Although this list may be obvious to some, it is SCARY how often these things happen, and therefore they need to be mentioned. With […]

Read More

Department of Revenue v. Vanamburg

In DOR v. Vanamburg, the appellate court reversed an order amending an order by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) because the department lost jurisdiction of the case when the Order was appealed. The appellant had initially sought a rehearing to correct errors, but later filed an appeal. That was proper because the department is not […]

Read More

Gentile v. Gentile

In Gentile v. Gentile, the 4th DCA reversed and remanded a case for further proceedings. The parties’ settlement agreement, announced on the record, split a parcel of land and left the valuation of that splitting to binding mediation, but the mediator did not utilize the division as contemplated by the settlement agreement (which included a […]

Read More

Wolfson v. Wolfson

Wolfson v. Wolfson from the 3d DCA is a post-judgment case that has been highly litigated, even years after the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In this iteration of the case, a temporary modification of timesharing, granted by the trial court after hearing only the former husband’s part of the case, was overturned and […]

Read More

Bailey v. Bailey

Bailey v. Bailey concerned the granting by the trial court of a motion for psychosocial and substance abuse evaluation. The Appellate court quashed the order because the motion was filed the same day as the hearing, and thus there was inadequate notice. The evidence that was adduced suggested that some type of psychological evaluation might […]

Read More

Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch

A case that was talked about extensively at last year’s certification review in Orlando, Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, has returned, this time with the Supreme Court weighing in and approving the 4th DCAs opinion. The case involves interpretation of prenuptial agreements. The 2d DCA case of Irwin v. Irwin and the 3d DCA case of Valdes […]

Read More

Rutan v. Rutan

Rutan v. Rutan is a case that had been previously remanded for findings. The 2d DCA again remanded the case for findings justifying its award of alimony. The trial court (in Pinellas County) found that the Wife had met her burden of proving ability to pay, but the findings are insufficient to allow the appellate […]

Read More