EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION – DIVISION
HINES v. WILLIAMS
So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) 49 FLW D400 (2/21/2024)
WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MAKE SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS REGARDING ITS DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS AND DEBTS OR ITS DETERMINATION OF MARITAL AND NONMARITAL ASSETS AND DEBTS PURSUANT TO §61.075, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS WAS PROVIDED WITH THE APPEAL.
Case remanded for the court to make specific factual findings. Given the passage of time since the two evidentiary hearings leading to the prior equitable distribution determination and the lack of transcripts, the trial court may, in its discretion, take additional evidence and amend and/or update its prior equitable distribution determination in light of any additional evidence presented.
=====================================================================================
MODIFICATION – ALIMONY
PAPPAS v. PAPPAS
So. 3d (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) 49 FLW D429 (2/23/2024)
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IN ADDITION TO THE REDUCTION IN THE WIFE’S ALIMONY OBLIGATION TO THE HUSBAND, IT ALSO SUSPENDED THE WIFE’S ALIMONY OBLIGATION FOR 8 MONTHS DURING HER SHORT-TERM DISABILITY. THE WIFE’S PETITION TO REDUCE OR TERMINATE HER ALIMONY OBLIGATION TO THE HUSBAND AS A RESULT OF HER REDUCTION IN PAY DUE TO AN UNEXPECTED DEMOTION DID NOT ALLEGE HER SHORT-TERM DISABILITY AS A BASIS FOR THE MODIFICATION, NOR DID SHE AMEND HER PLEADINGS TO INCLUDE SAME.
The issue was not tried by consent and the wife did not request the 8-month suspension in any pleading. The wife’s motion to continue the final hearing on the modification because of her short-term disability is insufficient to support said order.
Additionally, upon remand, the trial court should recalculate the wife’s net income after correcting its findings regarding 2 of the wife’s expenses which were determined to be higher than the wife’s testimony regarding those expenses. (Author’s note: the DCA uses the term the wife’s net income in the opinion even though it is clear that the court meant the wife’s available funds after the payment of her expenses.)
=====================================================================================
MODIFICATION – PARENTING (grandparent visitation)
MATTINGLY v. HATFIELD
So. 3d (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) 49 FLW D492 (2/28/2024)
A FOREIGN ORDER THAT AWARDS GRANDPARENT VISITATION PURSUANT TO THAT STATE’S STATUTES IS VALID IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE CASE OF Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs, 210 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2017).
FLORIDA DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A KENTUCKY GRANDPARENT VISITATION ORDER BECAUSE THE GRANDMOTHER CONTINUES TO RESIDE IN KENTUCKY AND PURSUANT TO THE KENTUCKY GRANDPARENT VISITATION ORDER, SHE IS A PERSON ACTING AS A PARENT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER. THUS, KENTUCKY HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE ORDER.
Parents’ Petition to Modify the Kentucky Grandparent Visitation is properly dismissed although the trial court applied the wrong reasoning.