Modification of Alimony should be granted retroactively to the date the petition was filed if the reasons justifying modification existed at that time. In a case captioned Nuttle v. Nuttle the former husband appealed a final judgment modifying his alimony obligation. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to correctly modify the former husband's alimony. In 2015, the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement under which the former husband agreed to pay his former wife durational alimony. Before the trial court signed the final judgment, the former husband filed a supplemental petition for modification of alimony based on the fact that the former husband was notified by his employer that he was going to be terminated from his employment. Eleven months after the parties entered into the marital settlement agreement, the trial court entered a final judgment that incorporated the terms of the marital settlement agreement and reserved jurisdiction to hear the former husband's modification of alimony. The former husband then filed an amended supplemental petition for modification of alimony.
A Child Custody and Visitation case involving emergency intervention by the Court was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned McAbee v. McAbee. In this case the parents married in South Carolina and divorced in Virginia. They have one child. The mother alleged that the father sexually abused the child in Virginia and in Florida. The father admitted to sexually abusing the child in letters that he sent to the mother. The father also documented to having a sex addiction. The father later denied the sexual abuse and claimed that the sex addiction was a reaction to taking certain medication. The mother filed for custody in Virginia and a psychologist stated that the father was no threat to the child. The father moved to Florida and filed for divorce in Virginia. The mother also moved to Florida. The Virginia court granted the father supervised time-sharing. The mother petitioned for relief in Florida and the case was dismissed. Later on, the Virginia court gave the father graduated timesharing. The mother filed more petitions in Florida and the Florida court denied her petitions. The mother moved to South Carolina with the child. The Virginia court then awarded the father sole custody. The mother sought a protective order in South Carolina, which was denied. The mother then filed an action in Broward County, Florida. The Broward County judge found that the child had been abused. The court issued an injunction and ordered the child to have no contact with the father.
A Child Relocation case was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Castleman v. Bicaldo. In this case, the mother emigrated from the Philippines to the United States in order to marry the Father. As a result of the marriage, she was able to obtain a Green Card. After 26 months of marriage, the Father filed for divorce. The trial judge issued a Final Judgment in which the Court ruled that if Wife's citizenship application was denied, she would be allowed to move to the Philippines with her child. The trial court found that the relocation statute did not apply to persons who are deported. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment.
A Child Custody and Visitation case involving private schooling was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal. The father sought to enroll the children in a private Christian school. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarded the parents shared parental responsibility for the children. In 2017, the children attended public school at Palmetto Middle School and Palmetto Elementary School. The parents could not agree on which middle school the children should attend. The mother preferred Palmetto Middle School and the father wanted the children to attend a private Christian school. The father stated that he was willing to pay for the cost for the children to attend the private school.
A Modification of Child Custody and Visitation case was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal. In a case captioned Puhl v. Puhl the Florida Court of Appeal held that the failure to keep other parent informed of issues concerning a child was an insufficient basis, in and of itself, to modify the parties' timesharing schedule. In Puhl v. Puhl the trial court entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution which incorporated the parties agreed upon parenting plan. The parenting plan provided for shared parental responsibility and also provided that if the parties were unable to agree upon the child's healthcare, education or religious upbringing, the mother's decision would prevail. A year after the divorce was granted, the Father moved to modify the parties' parenting plan. The Father alleged that the Mother was deciding healthcare issues pertaining to the child without consulting him and that the child was receiving unnecessary medical treatment.
To obtain a divorce in Florida, either the Husband or the Wife must reside in Florida for six (6) months prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. A court does not have jurisdiction to decide a divorce case unless jurisdiction is appropriately allege in the Petition for Dissolution and proved at the Final Hearing.
In an alimony case, a trial court may require a paying spouse to maintain life insurance under certain circumstances. In order for a court to require a paying spouse to maintain life insurance, the trial court must find that the insurance is available, it must state the cost of the policy, and it must determine the that paying spouse has the ability to pay for the cost of the insurance. The amount of the insurance required must be commensurate with the amount of the support obligation. Finally, in order to require a paying spouse to maintain life insurance to secure an alimony obligation, there must be "special circumstances" that justify this requirement. These special circumstances include situations where the recipient spouse would be left in severe financial condition after the death of the paying spouse due to his or her poor health, age, or lack of employment potential.
A division of property and assets case involving a husband's pension was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal. In this case, the husband and wife were married for thirteen years. When the divorce was filed, the husband had been working for the City of Delray Beach as a firefighter for 16 years. The Husband's pension accrued at a rate of 2.5% per year. Once the husband had served for 25 years, his retirement benefits increased to 3% per year. When the divorce was filed, the husband was eligible for the 2.5% multiplier. The Florida Court of Appeal pointed out that there are two methods to distribute pensions. The first method is the immediate offset method. Under this method, spouses receive the present value of their interest in the other spouse's pension either in cash or as a share of marital distribution. The second method is the deferred distribution method. Under this method, the judge determines the amount of the employee's benefit as of the date of the final hearing (without any early retirement penalty).
Modification of child custody & visitation in Florida was recently discussed in a case captioned Lewis v. Juliano. In this case, the Mother appealed an order that required her to provide the Father with her physical address as a precondition to exercising timesharing. The trial court modified the parties' timesharing schedule as a result of the Mothers' failure to provide the Father with her physical address.
A child custody and visitation issue was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Preudhomme v. Preudhomme. In this case, the Mother challenged the trial court's timesharing determination. The Mother lived in Pensacola and the Father lived in Mobile, Alabama. During the pendency of the divorce proceeding, the parents met midway between the two cities for timesharing. The parents arranged for the child to attend preschools in both cities. The Mother asked the trial court to create a parenting plan in which she had majority timesharing and the Father was given alternating weekends and holidays and weekly rotating custody during the summer. The Father asked the trial court to continue the current timesharing schedule until the child began kindergarten. The child was scheduled to begin kindergarten approximately twenty months later. After the child started kindergarten, the Father requested that he be awarded majority timesharing when the child was in school. The Father proposed that the Mother should have timesharing during alternating holidays and weekends, and for most of the summer. The court adopted the Father's proposed parenting plan.