Now We Have Impersonators Too.

Tell us oh Lord Julie Kay, when will this long national nightmare come to an end?

Add Florida Bar impersonators to the list:

Rothstein said in a marathon deposition that he even enlisted a paralegal employed by his partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt, to pose as a Florida Bar staffer in a phone call with worried investor Ari Glass and his lawyer.

"I had given her a script to refer to about what was going on, what questions she should answer," Rothstein testified in the deposition. "I told her specifically that when they ask for something that she couldn't think up an answer for to just say that pursuant to the Bar rules she couldn't answer that type of question, that was her escape vow, so to speak."

 Hey, why should that raise any alarm bells?  Have you seen this guy's private elevator?

Your First Practice Tip of 2012!

Welcome to the apocalypse 2012!

Your first practice tip of the year comes courtesy of our newest federal jurist, Judge Scola -- we're of course delighted he's on the federal bench and thrilled he's finally able to write opinions that are published and available in the future as precedent -- you know, that whole "rule of law" thang.

Here he is helping an insurance company defendant on how to do basic research and brief writing, especially in the context of a motion for reconsideration:

After appearing at a calendar call on December 27, 2011 and announcing ready for trial and after being told the case was the number one case for trial on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., QBE filed this motion on Friday afternoon, December 30, 2011. In its Motion for Reconsideration, QBE takes no issue with the court’s ruling granting its motion for summary judgment in part. QBE claims, however, that the court’s order granting Ocean View’s Corrected Motion on QBE’s second and third affirmative defenses - which are premised on Ocean View’s alleged failure to comply with the policy’s post-loss obligations prior to filing this law suit – was wrongly decided. In support of its Motion for Reconsideration, QBE cites numerous opinions from the Southern District of Florida in cases involving this very same Defendant -- none of which were cited by QBE in its Response to the Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment. It boggles the mind to consider how QBE could not be aware of opinions in its own cases from the same federal district court and yet not cite those cases until after receiving an adverse ruling from the court.

You mean that's not a basis under the rule?

(At least it was worth burning up the midnight oil over the holidays both preparing for trial and scrambling to crank out a motion for reconsideration that went over like a Led Zeppelin.)

Happy New Year, Plebes!

 Here's hoping you all have a safe, healthy, happy and prosperous 2012 -- thanks for reading!

First District Court Reverses Child Support Modification

The First District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court today in Nabinger v. Nabinger, in so doing finding that the lower court erred in offsetting the Former Husband’s adjusted child support obligation by the amount of an adoption subsidy received by the Former Wife.  As the Final Judgment provided for the Former Wife to receive that subsidy without credit to the Former Husband, the First District found that the unrequested credit given to the Former Husband constituted a modification in his favor not requested in the pleadings.

First District Reverses Fee Award with no Factors

The First District Court ruled today in Luke v. Luke and both affirmed the reduction of alimony and reversed the fee award issued by the trial court.  The alimony reduction was not as substantial as the one sought by the appellant, but the trial court made sufficient findings, in the view of the First DCA, to justify the limited reduction.  The fee award, however, was not made with any indication of what factors were reviewed to determine whether the fees and hours were reasonable, and so it was remanded to the trial court to make those findings.

First DCA Reverses Modification and Fee Award

In Galligar v. Galligar, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a modification of alimony which reduced the former husband’s support obligation on the grounds that the modified amount still exceeded the former husband’s ability to pay, as it amounted to 81% of his net monthly income, and on the ground that the order that he pay a portion of his former wife’s attorney’s fees was improper due to her own ability to pay.  While the trial court directed that the appellant could pay the alimony and attorneys’ fees from his assets, the First District rejected “the suggestion by the trial court that a party who is meeting a current alimony obligation is required to set aside additional funds to meet future alimony obligations, in anticipation of a potential loss of income.  The First District also found that, as each party was equally able to pay fees, it was error to make any award from one party to the other.

First District Court Affirms Modification of Support for Respite Care

The First District Court ruled today in Koslowski v. Koslowski, in so doing distinguishing that ruling from the Second District’s prior ruling in Kuttas v. Ritter, 879 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).  In that older case, the Second District allowed a modification of child support to provide for respite care expenses caused by the non-custodial parent’s move out of state and the need for child care for the parties’ teenage children as a result.  In Koslowski, the father argued that because he had not ceased exercising his timesharing, he could not be liable for such additional expenses.  The First DCA found that, as the expenses in this case were medical in nature, and as the exercise of timesharing was only one of many factors considered in Kuttas, the modification was appropriate.