Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A.
Palm Beach Gardens, West Palm Beach And Wellington, Florida Offices 561-328-1095

May 2014 Archives

Division of Property and Assets in Jupiter, FL Divorce

A division of property and assets must be based on competent substantial evidence with written findings a fact identifying marital assets and individually identifying significant assets. The valuation of an entire art collection, rather than its component parts, is reversible error. In Williams v. Williams, the Florida Court of Appeals recently stated: "It is unclear from the Final Judgment how the trial court reached the figure of $376,086 in valuing the parties' art collection. This dollar amount does not align with either figure offered by the parties' respective expert witnesses who appraised the collection. The value the trial court placed on the collection is nearly $100,000 below the $470,107 appraisal by the former husband's expert witness and is more than $300,000 below the $688,550 appraisal by the former wife's expert. 

Divorce in Boynton Beach

In a divorce proceeding, even where a default is granted, a court is required to hold a trial to determine the appropriate amount of alimony and the form of the distribution of assets, but the defaulting party may be prohibited from presenting evidence. In Ehman v. Ehman, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated:

Division of Property and Assets in a Jupiter, Florida Divorce

An appropriate division of property and assets and determination of alimony are required to be determined in a trial, even where a default is granted. In Ehman v. Ehman, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "On July 30, 2012, the Wife filed another motion asking the trial court to strike the Husband's pleadings based on his failure to provide discovery documents or proof that he requested the documents. On September 10, 2012, the trial court granted the Wife's motion, struck the Husband's pleadings, and entered a judicial default against him... 

Modification of Alimony in Palm Beach, FL

In a modification of alimony proceeding, where the possibility of change is known at the time of the final judgment, but the amount of the actual change that occurred was not known at that time, a modification may be permitted. In Garvey v. Garvey the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Whether it be a change of health or any other curveball life indiscriminately throws, predictability of the occurrence is the cornerstone to any analysis. In Mendes v. Mendes, 947 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), this court recognized the "well-established principle that modification may not be based upon factors affecting income known to the parties at the time a final judgment is entered." Id. at 452 (citation omitted). "The reason for this doctrine is an obvious one: if the likelihood of a particular occurrence was one of the factors which the court or the parties considered in initially fixing the award in question, it would be grossly unfair subsequently to change the result simply because the anticipated event has come to pass." Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443,445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (emphasis added).

Child Custody and Visitation in Singer Island, Florida

In a child custody and visitation proceeding, the constitu­tional guarantee of due process dictates a full and fair opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings. The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses or testify violates this fundamental right. In Cole v. Cole, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "...We conclude that in ruling, without giving the Father an opportunity to present evidence, the trial court abused its discretion and violated the Father's right to procedural due process. The constitu­tional guarantee of due process dictates a full and fair opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings. The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses or testify violates this fundamental right. Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Smith v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 

Division of Property And Assets - Jupiter, FL

In making a division of property and assets in a divorce, a spouses' unsupported opinion as to the value of property that is aggregated together is insufficient for purposes of equitable distribution. In Naylor v. Naylor, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Appellant, Craig J. Naylor, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises three issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion and reversal. We agree with Appellant that the trial court's $20,000 valuation of his tools for purposes of equitable distribution is not supported by competent, substantial evidence...

Request Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Email Us For A Response

Palm Beach Gardens Office
The Financial Center at the Gardens
3801 PGA Boulevard
Suite 600
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

Phone: 561-328-1095
Fax: (561) 472-1568
Map & Directions

Wellington Office
Wellington Reserve
1035 South State Road 7
Suite 315
Wellington, Florida 33414

Phone: 561-328-1095
Fax: (561) 472-1568
Map & Directions

West Palm Beach Office
Phillips Point
777 South Flagler Drive
Suite 800
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Phone: 561-328-1095
Fax: (561) 472-1568
Map & Directions

Boca Raton Office
One Boca Place
2255 Glades Road
Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Phone: 561-328-1095
Fax: (561) 472-1568
Map & Directions