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. […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

Wells v. Whitfield

Wells v Whitfield In Wells vs. Whitfield, the 1st DCA reversed a child support award for lack of statutory findings regarding income. The amended final judgment did not include any findings specifying what portion of the retained earnings of the Husband’s solely-owned corporation were included by the court in determining the father’s gross income. Absent […]

Read More

Kelley v. Kelley

Kelley v Kelley In Kelly v. Kelly, the 4th DCA reversed and remanded the final judgment on the issues of equitable distribution and alimony. As to ED, the trial court had stated its intention to make equal awards to the parties, but a mathematical error in the equalizing payment made the award significantly unequal. As […]

Read More

Lopez v. Department of Revenue

Lopez v Department of Revenue Lopez vs. DOR involves a situation where section 57.105 attorney’s fees and costs are awarded as a sanction against the Department of Revenue in a misidentified paternity case. The case has a very wild factual scenario, which I commend everyone to read in its entirety. The bottom line is that […]

Read More