Third DCA Affirms Finding Funds are Marital

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed today, per curiam, the lower court’s finding in Toral v. Toral, that certain funds were marital property.  The Court found that the husband had not only commingled the originally non-marital property with marital funds, but that he had agreed to transfer the entire account containing them to the wife’s mother in order to earn a higher interest rate.  The lower court determined based on this that a gift was intended, and the Third District was unable to set aside that determination of credibility.

Charging Lien Reversed in Part in Divorce Case

In an appeal related to a charging lien granted in favor of two attorneys based on their work in an underlying dissolution of marriage action, the Second District Court reversed in part today in Riveiro v. Mason, P.A..  The basis for reversal was the lack of any finding as to the reasonable hourly rate or number of hours expended by counsel and resulting in the $76,000.00 lien, as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and its progeny. 

Second District Reverses Final Judgment on Various Grounds

The Second District Court of Appeal reversed today in Crick v. Crick, on several grounds.  First, in dividing the parties’ credit card debt used to purchase certificates of deposit, the court designated the same monies as both liability and asset, creating an unjustified distribution to the Wife.  Second, the lower court granted twenty-four months of rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $2,000.00 a month without making any findings as to need or ability to pay, or as to either party’s net income or the former husband’s gross income.  Also, the lower court evidently ordered combined alimony and child support which exhausted the entirety of the former husband’s income.  Finally, the lower court’s order that the former husband in addition pay one-half of his former wife’s attorneys’ fees was reversed on the ground that the equitable distribution and alimony reversals would require reconsideration of that award.

Second District finds Final Judgment to be Non-Final

The Second District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal today in Peterson v. Peterson, on the basis that the Final Judgment was not final in nature, and requiring the lower court to enter such a final order.  The lower court had reserved jurisdiction to determine a parenting plan and all matters relating to the children in a separate order, retained jurisdiction to determine alimony in the future, failed to value various business assets, and otherwise left many issues still unresolved between the parties, including attorneys’ fees and costs.  While the Second DCA sympathized with the lower tribunal for the lack of clear evidence before it, they were still required to find the Final Judgment to be a non-final order.

Second District Discusses Post-Judgment Jurisdiction

The Second District Court ruled today in King v. King, in so doing reversing the lower tribunal’s finding that jurisdiction was lacking to enforce interest payments due under the parties’ marital settlement agreement by use of its contempt powers, and as a result denying the Former Wife’s Motion.  That Court was reversed because the Final Judgment contained a specific reservation of jurisdiction for enforcement purposes, and the Second District also pointed out that, if jurisdiction were truly lacking, denial on the merits was improper in favor of dismissal of the motion.

Spencer Aronfeld Speaks At #LTNY!

Ok, I admit to being blissfully ignorant of #LTNY 2012.

Best I can tell, it's the type of convention you can get your law firm to send you to after they reject your request to go to the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas.

And maybe it's just me, but if I'm in New York I can think of literally ten thousand things I would rather be doing than listening to vendors pitch high-tech doohickeys intended to "optimize" my practice.

(I better stop before this turns into a Tannebaum-esqe rant).

But hey, I don't "get" food trucks or sliders or sliders from food trucks either.

Different strokes etc.

So let's just roll tape:

I actually watched this with the sound off, so I have no idea what's being said -- but I love the pinstripes, like the strategic use of the smart phone, the product placement of the two books is unobtrusive and organic -- I'm giving it an A-.

3d DCA Watch -- School Daze Edition!

What a treat -- the bunker denizens will be heading to UM to play Ultimate on the lawn, get soused at the Rat, and TP a few sorority houses....

What?

Actually, I'm advised that this is the Court's official position on the visit:

On February 10, 2012, the Court will hear Oral Argument at the University of Miami Law School, Newman Alumni Center, 6200 San Amaro Drive, Coral Gables, 33146.

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

Onward:

Aronson v. Aronson:

In this opinion Judge Shepherd "reasons inductively."

Demchak v. Davia:

In a fraudulent inducement suit over the value of a house, do you need to sell the house to establish your damages?

Judge Ramirez says no; Judge Shepherd says yes.

(Question -- can't expert testimony serve as a basis?)

See you crazy kids on campus!