Division of Marital Property and Marital Assets - Installment Payments in Florida Although a trial court has discretion to order an equitable distribution award to be made in installments, the installments cannot be spread over too long of a period of time. "We recognize that under section 61.075(10), a trial court has discretion to order an equitable distribution award payable in installments over a fixed period of time. See Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109,114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, under the scenario fashioned by the trial court, it would take over eighteen years for the former wife to receive her share of the award, effectively depriving the former wife of her one-half interest in the marital assets." Fotinos v. Fotinos
Statute of Limitations for Enforcement of Alimony & Child Support
Statute of Limitations for Enforcement of Alimony & Child Support - in Florida No statute of limitations applies to enforcement of alimony or child support obligations; although laches can apply. "Florida does not have a limitations period for I enforcement of alimony or child-support orders, and thus Florida's unlimited period applies. Notwithstanding the absence of a limitations period, the former wife's action for enforcement is equitable in nature and thus may be limited by the doctrine of laches. See Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Brown v. Steinle, 837 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)." Jackmore v. Jackmore
Paternity DNA Test Results - in Florida
Appellant argues that DNA test results, which showed that he was not the biological father of the child, constituted newly discovered evidence for purposes of section 742.18(1)... After examination of the text in section 742.18, we find that the plain language in section 742.18 requires a showing of newly discovered evidence in addition to DNA test results indicating that a male is not the father of the child." Hooks v. Quaintance
Paternity Test in Florida
An erroneous order for genetic testing should be corrected through certiorari proceedings. "However, this court has held that an erroneous order for genetic testing 'cannot be corrected through a direct appeal, for the improper genetic testing requiring a blood draw would have already been completed' and thus any error in the order 'must be corrected through certiorari proceedings.' Price, 958 So. 2d at 1046; see also State, Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Sharifv. Brown, 980 So. 2d 590, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that a potentially erroneous order requiring a mother and child to submit to genetic testing for a determination of paternity 'threatens what we have held to be irreparable harm that cannot be cured on plenary appeal'); Dep't of Revenue v. Long, 937 So. 2d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)" J.S. and C.L. v. SMM
Child Custody And Visitation in Palm Beach County, Florida
It is not in a child's best interests to rotate schools. "In Langford v. Ortiz, 654 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court similarly held that it was not in the best interest of the child to require the child, who was in the second grade, to rotate schools at the beginning of December and the beginning of June every year. This court noted that attending two different schools during the school year would be 'a disruption in this young girl's academic and personal life, no matter how much her parents work to smooth the transition.' Id.; see Bainbridge v. Pratt, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1699 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 4, 2011)" Otto-Jones v. Jones
