Family Law Case Law Update 3/15/13

FAMILY LAW
CASE LAW UPDATES
MARCH 15, 2013
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-CONTEMPT
In Hardman v. Koslowski, 38 FLW D465b (Fla. 1st DCA opinion filed 2/27/13) The DCA reversed an Order of contempt and the sanction entered against the Former Wife for preventing the Former Husband from having normal and usual routine contact with the parties’ sons because there no order requiring the Former Wife to provide the Former Husband with such contact. While reversal of the contempt order necessarily resulted in reversal of the sanction, the court noted there was a lack of a purge provision, indicating the trial court found a criminal contempt. Because the contempt action arose in the context of a DOM action, the trial court was required to determine a need and ability to pay before imposing a monetary sanction. See 61.16(2) Fla. Stat.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-CHILD CUSTODY-RELOCATION OF CHILDREN
In Eckert v. Eckert, 38FLW D475b (Fla. 4th DCA opinion filed 2/27/13) The DCA addressed several issues on appeal. First, the DCA found that the trial court abused its discretion in entering an Order allowing the Mother to relocate to a foreign country without making the requisite oral or written findings involved in relocation decisions. See 61.13001 (7) Fla. Stat. (2012). Reversed
With regard to child support, the trial court’s finding that the Mother was unemployed because of an agreement between the parties that she would not work until the children were older was not supported by the evidence. However, the court found no harmful error and they were not required to impute income to the Mother because the evidence supported that she was not voluntarily unemployed. The Order was Reversed to the extent that the trial court’s finding of an agreement not to work is not supported by any evidence in the record.
Lastly, the DCA reversed that portion of the trial court’s order requiring the Father to obtain two million dollars of insurance on his life because the court failed to determine the proper amount needed to secure his obligation, it’s availability and cost.
INJUNCTION
In Bacchus v. Bacchus, 38 FLW D490a (Fla. 5th DCA opinion filed 3/1/13) The DCA ) The DCA reversed an Order finding error in extending a temporary injunction against Husband in favor of the estranged wife where there was no showing of a reasonable fear of continuing violence finding that evidence via a third party that he had contacted her was not enough. Because the Wife was never given a full hearing on her request for injunction and was precluded from presenting evidence that would support an injunction, the DCA reversed and remanded with directions for a new hearing on a permanent injunction.
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION-PENSION
In George v. George, 38 FLW D497b (Fla. 2d DCA opinion filed 3/1/13). Though the DCA recognized that the trial court’s ruling was equitable, they were compelled to reverse finding no jurisdiction to modify an equitably divided asset awarded pursuant to a final judgment. In this case the Former Husband appealed two final orders attempting to modify an award of monies from his pension to the Former Wife. The Final judgments found that 67.59% of the pension was marital and awarded the Former Wife her half. To modify the percentage shares of the pension benefit as part of the equitable distribution scheme. The Final Judgment awarded the Former Wife was awarded 33.795% of the pension. The Former Husband was awarded 66,205% (his marital share plus the non-marital portion) Former Husband’s counsel ordered to prepare the QDRO by these percentages and reserved jurisdiction for enforcement.
A trial court has no jurisdiction to modify property rights after those rights have been adjudicated in a final judgment of dissolution. See Bridges v. Bridges, 848 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). A general reservation of jurisdiction in a dissolution order is typically insufficient to preserve a court’s jurisdiction to subsequently alter property rights. See Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Reversed.