Modification of child support in Florida was recently explained in Arquette v. Rutter. In Arquette v. Rutter the Florida Court of Appeal stated: "This court recently explained the circumstances, under the UIFSA, in which a Florida court may modify a child support order issued in another state: [A]s is the case here, when not all of the parties reside in Florida, a Florida court may only modify the order under one of the following circumstances: 1. After notice and hearing the tribunal finds that a. the child, individual obligee, and obligor do not reside in the issuing state; b. the petitioner seeks modification and is not a Florida resident; and c. the Florida tribunal has personal jurisdiction over the respondent. 2. The tribunal finds that it has personal jurisdiction over an individual party or the child and that all of the individual parties have filed a consent in the issuing tribunal to the Florida tribunal's modifying the support order and assuming continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it.
In a paternity proceeding, a child born during an intact marriage is presumed to be the child of the man to whom the biological mother was married. In CG v. J.R. & J.R., the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "... [T]his is...a case wherein the biological mother- while married to her husband-became pregnant by another man and wherein both fathers claim parental rights to the child. The fact that C.G.'s DNA test results established that he was H.G.-R.'s biological father is "legally insignificant" for purposes of establishing parental rights. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 117 So.3d 73, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
In a divorce proceeding, the party attempting to impute income, bears the burden of proof to provide competent substantial evidence. In Cash v. Cash the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "In the supplemental final judgment the court did not impute income to the former wife, finding that "the evidence was insufficient.
A motion for an interim division of property and assets must be sworn and should describe the assets to be partially distributed. The Court's Order should identify which assets are marital and which assets are nonmarital. In Austin v. Austin the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2011), does not authorize the trial court's action here, contrary to the wife's urging. This section provides in pertinent part as follows:
In making a division of property and assets in a divorce proceeding in Florida, the award of a ½ ownership interest in property as of a particular date entitles the recipient to share in the gains and losses in the account on the date of distribution. In Graham v. Graham the Florida Court of Appeal stated that: "JoAnn Graham appeals an order granting post-judgment relief on grounds it fails to effectuate the marital settlement agreement she and Nathaniel Graham entered into in September of 1994 in anticipation of the dissolution of their marriage later that year. She maintains the trial court erred both in calculating her share of the former husband's 401 (k) account and in calculating her share of his Army pension. Persuaded she is right in both instances, we reverse and remand.