In Theodorides vs. Theodorides, the trial court erred in granting a Rule 12.540 motion to vacate a post-divorce final judgment. The former Wife had attempted to use Rule 12.540 to invalidate an order based on a recommendation of the General Magistrate, but the Former Wife neither filed exceptions to the recommendations, nor moved for rehearing, […]
Category: Case Law Category
Lathrop vs. Lathrop
In Lathrop vs. Lathrop, the trial court rightfully awarded alimony, but it erred in requiring that the alimony be secured by life insurance. In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purpose of securing an alimony obligation. A final judgment of dissolution must set forth sufficient […]
“So you’re going through a divorce and you’re ready to start cutting ties with everything…don’t change anything just yet.”
Often times at the outset of a divorce, men begin wondering what to do regarding their home, their bills, their insurance policies, etc. They want to begin cutting ties with their old life and begin establishing a new one. More often than not, the appropriate course of action during the pendency of your divorce is […]
Benedict v. Benedict
In Benedict vs. Benedict, the trial court entered a judgment for alimony arrearages while a petition seeking to downwardly modify alimony was pending. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, but noted that the debtor is able to proceed in the future to obtain relief from the judgment (under Rule 1.540(b)(5)) to the extent that the […]
Tluzek v. Tluzek
Tluzek vs. Tluzek is a case of first impression in Florida. In involves the allocation of an adoption subsidy received by the parents of adopted children with special needs. The court ruled that the parents’ child support obligation should be determined first pursuant to the guidelines. Then, the adoption subsidy should be apportioned between the […]
Cockrell v. Kinnett
In Cockrell vs. Kinnett, the appellate court reversed a contempt order that modified the parties’ timesharing schedule with the child, because there was no pleading that alleged a significant change in circumstances. The mother was thus not put on notice that modification would be sought or granted. Modification is not a proper sanction for non-compliance. […]
Brannon v. Palcu
In Brannon vs. Palcu, the appellate court granted a writ of certiorari because the trial court ordered that an otherwise privileged email between lawyer and client be produced under the conspiracy-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. An evidentiary hearing would be required before the privilege could be breached. Brannon v Palcu
Russell v. Pasik
Russell v Pasik Russell vs. Pasik is a case involving a same-sex (female) couple with children. The parties each had two children from artificial insemination. The children are referred to as biological half-siblings. Each child has a hyphenated last name with both Pasik and Russell (the opinion is silent on which order the names are […]
Rosenblum v. Rosenblum
Rosenblum v Rosenblum Rosenblum v. Rosenblum involves pro se litigants feeling their way through a typical set of circumstances. The former husband first filed a Motion to Modify Child Support (there is no discussion as to why it was appropriate to consider that as a motion rather than as a supplemental petition), and before that […]
Taylor v. Taylor
Taylor v Taylor In Taylor v. Taylor, the 2d DCA reverses an award of durational, rather than permanent, alimony. The identified problem essentially was twofold, but really comes down to an absence of statutory findings. There is a lack of findings necessary to support the use of durational rather than permanent alimony, and the amount […]