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

Posts tagged "Florida"

Child Relocation in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

In a recently decided child relocation case, the parties had two minor children. The Wife wanted to relocate to Virginia with the children. The Husband opposed the relocation. The parties lived in Virginia for many years prior to moving to Florida. After the parties lived in Florida for two years, the wife filed a petition for divorce. The wife requested that the trial court permit her to relocate with the children because she believed that the relocation would be in the children's best interest. Additionally, she argued that the relocation would eliminate her need to constantly travel for work.

Paternity Cases in West Palm Beach, Florida

In paternity unwed/unmarried parents cases, gifts from the paying party's family members and gifts from the paying party's boyfriends and girlfriend may be included in calculating the paying party's income. In a recently decided case captioned Wood v. Wood, the father started working for a company owned by his girlfriend. In his financial affidavit the father listed his monthly income. The trial court found that the father earned a salary from the father's employment, but also believed that another source was paying the father's expenses. The trial court imputed additional income to the father from his family and from  his girlfriend. When the case was presented to the Florida Court of Appeal, the father argued that the trial court misunderstood his financial circumstances and argued that the trial court's ruling was erroneous. The Court of Appeal agreed with the father and found that the trial court's ruling was based on speculation. The Florida Court of Appeal and reversed the lower court's ruling.

Alimony in Jupiter, Florida

In a recently decided alimony case, the Florida Court of Appeal stated that permanent alimony is intended to allow the recipient spouse to maintain the standard of living established by the parties during the course of their marriage. In this case, the parties were married for 39 years and had adult children. The parties agreed upon the distribution of their assets, but were unable to agree upon the amount of the wife's alimony award. The parties agreed that the Wife was to receive ½ of the Husband's military retirement benefits. The parties both took on debt. During the course of the marriage, the wife worked and raised the parties' children while the Husband served in the military. The wife was a bartender in the marriage's early years and was then a realtor. The wife was then in a motorcycle accident and was not working at the time of the trial. The wife was in the process of attempting to obtain disability benefits at the time that the trial took place. At the time of trial, the Husband was retired and was working on a contract basis. The husband also received a disability check.

Alimony in Wellington and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

In a recently decided alimony case captioned Jimenez v. Jimenez, the Florida Court of Appeal stated that in reaching a decision concerning alimony, a trial court is required to consider every one of the factors set forth in the Florida Statutes. In deciding whether or not to award alimony, a trial court is required to decide whether one of the parties has the ability to pay alimony and whether the other party has the need for alimony. If a court determines that one party has the ability to pay alimony and that the other party has the need for alimony, the court is required to consider all of the following ten factors. First, the standard of living established by the parties during the marriage. Second, the length of the marriage. Third, the physical and emotional condition of each of the parties and the age of the parties. Fourth, each parties assets and liabilities. Fifth, the parties' earning capacities and the need for additional training and education. Sixth, each of the parties' contribution to the marriage. Seventh, the need to stay home with any minor children. Eighth, the tax consequences of an award of alimony. Ninth, each parties' sources of income from employment or investments. Tenth, any other factor that the court considers is necessary to reach a fair and just resolution of the matter.

Alimony in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

In a recently decided alimony case captioned Jimenez v. Jimenez, the Florida Court of Appeal stated that in reaching a decision concerning alimony, a trial court is required to consider every one of the factors set forth in the Florida Statutes. In deciding whether or not to award alimony, a trial court is required to decide whether one of the parties has the ability to pay alimony and whether the other party has the need for alimony. If a court determines that one party has the ability to pay alimony and that the other party has the need for alimony, the court is required to consider all of the following ten factors. First, the standard of living established by the parties during the marriage. Second, the length of the marriage. Third, the physical and emotional condition of each of the parties and the age of the parties. Fourth, each parties assets and liabilities. Fifth, the parties' earning capacities and the need for additional training and education. Sixth, each of the parties' contribution to the marriage. Seventh, the need to stay home with any minor children. Eighth, the tax consequences of an award of alimony. Ninth, each parties' sources of income from employment or investments. Tenth, any other factor that the court considers is necessary to reach a fair and just resolution of the matter.

Alimony in Jupiter, Florida

In a recently decided alimony case captioned Hua v. Tsung, the husband filed an action for divorce. The parties were married for 17½ years. The Husband and wife were in their early forties. The Husband was the primary breadwinner and wife was a homemaker and stay-at-home mother. The Husband owned several businesses during the marriage. The Husband owned part of a restaurant. The Husband also allegedly owned shares in a company named DSC Holdings Limited. At the time of the divorce, the husband lived with a new girlfriend and their two minor children in Brazil. The Wife lived in Broward County, Florida, and took care of the parties' minor children. During the marriage, the wife and the husband received generous gifts from the husband's parents. The husband's father bought them a home in California. When the parties moved to Florida, the Husband's parents bought them a home in Broward County. The Broward County home was valued between $650,000 to $700,000. The parties also bought a rental property. The parties' comfortable lifestyle was due in large part to the Husband's father. The wife earned no income.

Child Custody and Visitation in Wellington, Florida

In a child custody and visitation case, the Florida Court of Appeal recently ruled that a trial court cannot choose one parent's religious beliefs over the others' absent a showing of harm to the children. In Steinman v. Steinman the mother appealed a trial court's order finding her in contempt of court for unilaterally making decisions regarding her children's religion. The parties' marital settlement agreement provided for joint decision-making concerning all major decisions involving the children. The father contended that the mother's unilateral decision concerning the children's religious education constituted contempt of court.

Child Custody and Visitation in Wellington, Florida

In making a child custody and visitation award that provides for ultimate decision-making, a trial court must delineate the specific areas over which a parent can exercise this authority. In a recent case captioned McClure v. Beck, the former wife filed an appeal of a lower court decision which modified the parties' final judgment. The Court of Appeal agreed with the former wife's argument that the lower court decision should be reversed because the trial court erroneously gave the former husband ultimate decision-making authority without describing the specific areas over which he could exercise this authority. The parties' original final judgment of dissolution of marriage gave the parents equal time­sharing with their children. It required the parties to live in Indian River County. The former wife petitioned the Court to relocate to California. The lower court denied the former wife's petition. Notwithstanding the Court's ruling, the former wife remained in California. The former husband then filed a petition to modify the parties' time-sharing schedule and asked the Court to award him ultimate decision-making authority if the parties were unable to agree. The magistrate gave the former husband ultimate decision-making authority when the parties disagreed on major decisions concerning the welfare of the children. The trial court affirmed the magistrate's decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the magistrate's and the trial court's rulings.

Modification of Child Custody and Visitation in Wellington, FL

Modification of Child Custody and Visitation will only be granted where there is a substantial, unanticipated, material, change in circumstances and where a modification is in the best interests of the children. In D.M.J v. A.J.T a final judgment was entered by the trial court in 2011. A parenting plan was incorporated into the final judgment. The parenting plan provided that when the parties' child was old enough to attend kindergarten the parents would decide where the child should go to school. If the parties were unable to decide, the matter was supposed to be mediates. Four years later, the mother alleged in her supplemental petition for modification of timesharing that the father had moved 25 miles from where he lived when the final judgment was entered. The mother alleged that this created a substantial change in circumstances that warranted a modification of timesharing. The Mother requested additional timesharing, increased child support, a designation as the ultimate decision maker for issues involving the child's education. The trial court granted the Mother's supplemental petition. The father appealed the trial court's order.

Division of Property and Assets in Wellington, Florida

The division of property and assets in a Marital Settlement Agreement can be contested in two ways. The first basis to challenge a Marital Settlement Agreement is for fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. The second basis to challenge a Martial Settlement Agreement is for unfairness. In a recent case captioned Hall v. Hall the Florida Court of Appeal stated that a Marital Settlement Agreement could be set aside for fraud, duress, misrepre­sentation, or coercion. The second basis for setting aside a Martial Settlement Agreement contains three elements. First, the spouse that wants to set aside the agreement must prove that the Martial Settlement Agreement is unfair to the recipient spouse in light of the parties' financial circumstances. The trial court will then look at the financial situation of the parties, their ages, their education and their health. The trial court may then decide that the agreement is unfair to the recipient spouse in light of the payor spouse's financial circumstances.

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