As stated in the blog, the UCCJEA can be confusing for the average non-lawyer to follow. The UCCJEA’s purpose is to prevent the multi-state custody disputes that would otherwise arise if a parent had the ability to move accross state lines and file a custody lawsuit in another state.

Click here to see the blog, courtesy of divorcesaloon.com. Click here for a link to the UCCJEA.

The Palm Beach Divorce Attorneys of Nugent & Zborowski are well versed at handling all of the issues inherant in divorce litigation, including applications of the UCCJEA. For more information, call (561) 844-1200 or click Palm Beach Divorce Lawyer to speak with an attorney with Nugent & Zborowski.

In Hill v. Hill, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D475f (Fla. 3D DCA Mar. 2, 2011), the question before the court was whether or not language in the final judgment that provided that the court “reserve[d] jurisdiction to determine alimony and to reassess the parties’ income in contemplation of [the husband's] retirement” allowed former wife to seek an initial award of permanent alimony 18 years after her divorce had been finalized.

Simply stated, the appellate court said “NO”. Unfortunately for the former wife, the original final judgment lacked any findings establishing that she was entitled to alimony.

Or, as stated by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal in legal jargon:
“Instead, in order to properly reserve jurisdiction for later alimony, a trial court must initially consider “all relevant economic factors” and must make a finding of need and entitlement to an alimony award. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat.; Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148; Purrinos, 34 So. 3d at 245. If it had found “that the [w]ife was entitled to be awarded permanent periodic alimony, [the trial court] was required to do just that — award her permanent periodic alimony, even if only a nominal amount,” e.g., $1. Schmidt, 997 So. 2d at 454. Appellate courts find it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to fail to award nominal alimony where there has been a determination of need. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148; See id.; Schlagel, 973 So. 2d at 676-77; Nourse, 948 So. 2d at 904; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 930 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Misiak v. Misiak, 898 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Brewer v. Brewer, 898 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Blanchard, 793 So. 2d at 990.

Similarly, where an award of permanent periodic alimony is found to be inappropriate but the trial court has made a determination of need, appellate courts will remand with instructions to award nominal periodic alimony to permit the parties to later apply for modification. For example, in Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the trial court made a determination of the wife’s entitlement to alimony and awarded her both permanent periodic and lump sum alimony; however, this Court found that the husband had no present ability to pay and reversed both awards and “remand[ed] for the trial court’s consideration of a nominal alimony amount to the former wife and/or reservation of jurisdiction to entertain a modification motion in the future . . . .” In contrast, in the case before us, because need was not previously established, the trial court could not reserve jurisdiction to return, eighteen years later, to make an initial determination of need.”

Click West Palm Beach Divorce Attorney Discusses Alimony Case to see a copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Hill.

Call 561.844.1200 or click West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers to speak with an attorney of Nugent & Zborowski about the alimony aspects of your divorce or modification case.

In Belford v. Belford, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D163a (Fla. 2D DCA Jan. 21, 2011), the husband had appealed a trial court decision that charged him with nearly $90,000 of assets that were used by him during the parties’ separation.

Typically, in Florida, parties equally split everything that is considered a marital asset or marital liability. However, in some cases, where a spouse can show that assets were wasted, a spouse can be “charged” with the waste of assets. Oftentimes this concept arises when one spouse improperly spends money on a parmour.

In Belford, the appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court did not make the findings requisite to support the conclusion that the husband had wrongfully depleted -wasted- marital assets: “This aspect of the final judgment was erroneous for two reasons. First, the magistrate’s finding that Mr. Belford had spent marital funds and incurred marital debt for nonmarital purposes was unsupported by evidence. To be sure, Ms. Belford asserted her belief that Mr. Belford was “shoving the money to Mexico for some time,” but she offered no proof in support of that speculation. Mr. Belford denied the allegation and outlined his use of the funds for marital purposes. Second, the magistrate’s conclusion that the dissipation was not intentional should have resolved the issue in Mr. Belford’s favor….In the absence of misconduct, it is error to charge to a party’s share of equitable distribution assets that were dissipated during the dissolution proceedings. Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580, 584-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Likewise, in the absence of misconduct, it is error to classify marital debt as one party’s nonmarital obligation. Branch v. Branch, 775 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Misconduct is not shown by “mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves.” Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585. Rather, there must be a specific finding of intentional misconduct based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party’s “own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Id. (quoting Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).”

Click Boynton Beach Divorce Attorney to read the appellate court’s decision in Belford.

The attorneys and paralegals with the law firm of Nugent &Zborowski dedicate their practice to efficiently resolving their client’s divorce and family law matters. Call 561.844.1200, or click Boynton Beach Family Lawyer to arrange to speak with one of the firm’s Boynton Beach divorce lawyers about the equitable distribution issues inherent to your divorce case.

This Lake Worth Divorce Lawyer recently reviewed an appellate decision from the Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal that examined the calculation of child support-related issues and the determination of the appropriate amount of permanent alimony.

In Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D34a (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 29, 2010), the wife challenged the adequacy of the amount of permanent alimony awarded to her and the trial court’s allocation of financial responsibility for unreimbursed medical expenses related to the parties’ minor children.

As to the medical expenses, the appellate court held that the trial court erred by entering an order that required the parties to divide their children’s unreimbursed medical expenses in a proportion that differed from each party’s responsibility for child support: “[W]ife contends that the trial court’s 50/50 allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses was error because it conflicted with the final judgment’s child support allocation. This contention has merit. See § 61.30(8), Fla. Stat. (2009); Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“It is error for the court to equally divide the noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses when the court arrives at an unequal percentage share of child support.”). In other words, absent some logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary, collateral child support expenses must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation. Because the final judgment on appeal contains no such rationale, we must reverse and remand this portion of the final judgment and direct the trial court to enter an amended final judgment consistent with controlling case law.”

As to alimony, the appellate court noted that the trial court awarded an alimony award that was lower than what was requested by both the wife and husband, and reversed for a determination of an appropriate award that was in between the amount requested by the parties:

“Although a trial court can find that a party’s estimate of expenses is inflated, the record evidence must support that finding. See, e.g., Schwab v. Schwab, 864 So. 2d 82, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[T]he wife’s financial affidavit includes several expenses that appear inflated. . . . There is no competent, substantial record evidence to establish that these amounts were derived from the standard of living shared by the parties . . . .”); Atkins v. Atkins, 611 So. 2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“[T]he trial court found that ‘the Wife’s financial affidavit is significantly inflated’ . . ., and there is ample evidence to support such a finding.”). It is the function of the appellate court to determine whether the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent evidence, and when the trial court’s factual findings do not substantially comport with undisputed evidence in critical areas a per se abuse of discretion has occurred. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976). Hence, we must reject the husband’s contention that the trial court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion because its judgment was based upon erroneously recounted critical facts.

On remand, while we cannot instruct the trial court as to the exact alimony amount to award, we can safely say based on the record that the monthly alimony amount should be no lower than the amount to which the husband’s expert testified and no higher than the amount which the wife requested. Due to the passage of time, the parties may present additional testimony and argument to assist the trial court in making a proper determination. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the amount of alimony to be awarded to the wife.”

Click Lake Worth Divorce Attorney Resources to see a copy of the opinion in Zinovoy v. Zinovoy.

The Lake Worth Divorce Lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski practice marital and family law in and around Palm Beach County, Broward County, and Martin County. For more information, or to schedule a consultation, call 561.844.1200, click Lake Worth Divorce Attorney, or visit the firm’s website, www.nugentlawfirm.com.

In Doran v. Doran, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D44b (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 29, 2010), the former wife appealed an order granting the former husband timesharing with the parties’ minor child. The former wife argued that the trial court erred by not allowing the presentation of evidence regarding alleged abuse of the child by the former husband (evidence on why modification of the time-sharing schedule was not in the minors child’s best interests).

The Doran court agreed with the former wife that the trial court erred, holding: “A time-sharing schedule may not be modified without showing a “substantial, material, and unanticipated change in the circumstances and a determination that it is in the best interests of the child.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). Evidence of child abuse is relevant to the best interests determination. § 61.13(3)(m), Fla. Stat. Here, Ms. Doran sought to offer evidence of abuse of the children by Mr. Doran, namely: (1) testimony from Investigator Adkinson regarding the children’s allegation of abuse by their father; (2) two Department of Children and Families investigators regarding the alleged abuse; (3) testimony from the children or an in camera hearing with the children; and (4) Investigator Procino’s report. The trial court did not permit Ms. Doran to present this evidence which clearly would be relevant to a determination whether modification of the time-sharing schedule was in the best interests of the minor children. This was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”

Click Royal Palm Beach Divorce Lawyer Resources to see a copy of the opinion in Doran v. Doran.

This DeFuniak Springs Divorce Lawyer handled the case for the former wife.

The Royal Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski practice marital and family law in and around Palm Beach County, Broward County, and Martin County. Our practice is limited to representing clients in divorce and family law related matters, such as modification of child support, modification of child custody, relative custody and guardianship cases.

For more information, or to schedule a consultation, call 561.844.1200, click Royal Palm Beach Divorce lawyer, or visit the firm’s website, www.nugentlawfirm.com.

One of the firm’s marital and family law attorneys recently came across a Divorce Information, News and Law Blog post about a reality tv series featuring an internet reality show by the name of Divorce Rehab. Click on Palm Beach Pulse to view the complete blog entry.

According the blog, the reality show was started by former chiropractor turned Divorce Coach Amy Botwinick. Botwinick wrote a self-help book in 2005 entitled Congratulations on Your Divorce- The Road to Finding Your Happily Ever After (see womenmovingon.com for more information).

The internet show can be viewed from its website, divorcerehab.com.

A quick Google search will uncover many resources regarding preparing for and dealing with divorce. This Boca Raton Divorce lawyer (ironically) recommends What Your Divorce Lawyer May Not Tell You: The 125 Questions Every Women Should Ask by Margery Rubin. The book, although general in nature, gives a broad overview of many of the things that all people, male or female, should consider before and during a divorce proceeding. For more information about the book, or for an example of divorce coaching services, click Divorce Coach.

The Boca Raton Divorce Lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski represent clients in mediations,trials and appeals of divorce and family law matters in Palm Beach, Martin and Broward Counties. Call 561.844.1200 or click Boca Raton Divorce Attorneys if you would like to discuss whether there is merit to appealing the result of your divorce or family law judgment.

On December 29, 2010, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in favor of the firm’s Client in Glass v. Glass, No. 4D09-2791 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec 29, 2010).

In Glass, the parties had previously entered into a marital settlement agreement that provided the former husband would pay non-modifiable alimony to the firm’s client. In 2008, the former husband filed a Petition for Modification, seeking a downward modification of his alimony obligation to his former wife.

The problem, of course, was that the former husband previously agreed that alimony would be non-modifiable. Following the Petition for Modification, the lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski succeeded on a Motion for Summary Judgment (the Judge ruled that, as a matter of law, the former husband could not prevail on his Petition for Modification of alimony).

The former husband appealed the trial court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment, arguing that there were questions of fact as to whether the “non-modifiable” alimony was in fact modifiable. Thankfully, all three judges on the appellate panel agreed with the West Palm Beach appellate attorneys of Nugent & Zborowski’s position that former husband was barred from seeking to modify his non-modifiable support obligation.

Click West Palm Beach Appellate Attorneys to see the opinion in Glass v. Glass.

The West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski represent clients in mediations, and at the trial and appellate court level in Palm Beach, Martin and Broward Counties. Call 561.844.1200 or click Florida Appellate Attorneys of Nugent & Zborowski if you would like to discuss whether there is merit to appealing the result of your divorce or family law judgment.

Remember that, depending on the circumstances of the order being appealed, you may be required to file a Motion for Rehearing within 10 days of your judgment being issued or a notice of appeal within 30 days of your judgement being rendered.

For additional information visit the firm’s website at www.nugentlawfirm.com.

One lawyer from the firm recently reviewed a blog entry concerning the prosecution of a man for reading his wife’s emails. A National Cyber Security News-Source details the the prosecution. The Technology Slice Blog, which gives technology related news and reviews, also decribes the story.

Although the exact details of the incident are not clear to this writer, this incident should serve as a warning to anyone considering whether or not to “hack” into their spouse or former spouse’s email. Most people should consider that, typically, an email sent or received by a spouse or former spouse can always be obtained from the person who sent or received the email from the spouse or former spouse. In other words, there is not much of a reason to risk prosecution if the “incriminating email” has been sent to you, or if you know the identity of the person who has sent or received the email. If an email is legally relevant to your case, most courts will allow you to subpoena the record. Furthermore, other sources of records, such as phone records, can be used to prove affairs and legally obtained in most cases without encouraging prosecution.

The attoneys of Nugent & Zborowski handle all aspects of divorce and family law matters and serve as Palm Beach Gardens Divorce Lawyers; West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers; Boca Raton Divorce Lawyers; and Stuart Divorce Attorneys.

For more information, call the Law Offices of Nugent & Zborowski at 561.844.1200, click here, or visit the firm’s website, www.nugentlawfirm.com.

In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2896a (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 22, 2010), the former husband had appealed the trial court’s non-final order on former wife’s application for civil contempt against the former husband. The appellate court affirmed (agreed with the trial court) in all respects, but wrote an opinion to specifically address the former wife’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

Essentially, what happened in this case derived from former husband failing to adhere to a provision in the parties’ final judgement of dissolution of marriage that required him to make a payment to former wife from his New Hampshire corporation. In January 2009, the trial court held former husband in contempt of court for refusing to effectuate the payment to former wife and thereby ordered him to make a $41,160 to former wife. In doing so, the trial court rejected former husband’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to requisite to forcing the payment because the money was controlled by an out-of-state corporation. The former husband never appealed the order.

The former husband never paid the $41,160 to the former wife, who subsequently filed another contempt case. Again, the trial court (same judge) determined that the former husband was in contempt of court and that there was no acceptable excuse for his refusal to pay the money to former wife pursuant to the parties’ final judgment. This time, former husband appealed the decision.

The Sullivan court determined on appeal that former husband had no good reason not pay the money owed to former wife, and that his appeal of the trial court’s SECOND order on the issue was without merit: “Based on the foregoing, we conclude that former husband’s counsel knew or should have known that former husband’s claim on appeal is completely devoid of merit. We grant former wife’s motion (for appellate attorney’s fees) and find appellate attorney’s fees should be paid in equal amount by former husband and his attorney pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine the reasonable attorney’s fees former wife incurred.”

Click here to see the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Sullivan.

The West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers and Boca Raton Divorce Attorneys of Nugent and Zborowski routinely handle the appeals of trial court orders and final judgments. Click here to view a list of some the more notable decisions of cases our West Palm Beach Appellate Attorneys have handled.

The West Palm Beach divorce lawyers of Nugent and Zborowski are West Palm Beach divorce attorneys, and also serve as Boca Raton divorce lawyers; Palm Beach Gardens divorce lawyers; Jupiter alimony attorneys; grandparents’ rights attorneys; and father’s rights attorneys. For more information or to schedule a consultation call (561) 844-1200, click here, or visit the firm’s website, www.nugentlawfirm.com.

It is well known amongst Stuart divorce lawyers that one of the first things that needs to be analyzed at the outset of a case is whether the Court has jurisdiction over a client. As stated by this Charleston Family Law Attorney, “agreeing to jurisdiction…is misguided.” The danger of not being familiar with the rules of civil procedure is that you could be agreeing to jurisdiction without even knowing that you are doing so.

In Lubin v. Lubin, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2688a (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 8, 2010), the court reversed the trial court’s decision to set aside a final judgment on account of the Husband “participating” in the proceedings. The Wife had filed her Petition for Dissolution in 2005. The trial court allowed Wife to serve Husband by publication after her attempts to locate Husband failed. The Husband never filed an Answer to Wife’s Petition, which led to the trial court eventually entering a final judgment that awarded Wife the marital residence, two of the couple’s three cars, permanent alimony and attorney’s fees and costs.

In 2008, the Wife filed a Motion to Enforce the Final Judgment. Husband’s Boca Raton Divorce Lawyer filed his notice of appearance on May 14, 2008. On June 5th, the Husband appeared without an attorney at a hearing before a Magistrate and stated that he had not paid support to his former wife because he did not know that a final judgement had ever been entered. On June 8th, the Husband’s attorney filed a motion to vacate the final judgment and the trial court concluded that the court had lacked jurisdiction to decide matters pertaining to equitable distribution and support since the Husband was never personally served with process.

On appeal, the Lubin court reversed the trial court and determined that Husband waived his right to argue that the trial court lacked the personal jurisdiction requisite to equitably distributing the parties’ assets or to award alimony when he appeared at the hearing before the Magistrate without raising a contemporaneous objection to lack of personal jurisdiction. The Lubin court acknowledged that the trial court most likely lacked the jurisdiction to grant anything besides an order dissolving the parties marriage but, nonetheless, that Husband waived his ability to challenge the final judgment because he did not raise his jurisdictional challenge BEFORE responding to the Wife’s enforcement case.

Click here to see Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lubin.

The West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers and Boynton Beach Paternity Attorneys of Nugent and Zborowski routinely handle challenges to personal jurisdiction that often arise in complex divorce and child custody cases. The firm’s appellate attorneys recently helped define Florida case law on what type of appearance constitutes the waiver of the right to challenge jurisdiction in Hollowell v. Tamburro (click here to view the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion).

The West Palm Beach divorce lawyers of Nugent and Zborowski are West Palm Beach divorce attorneys, and also serve as Boca Raton divorce lawyers; Palm Beach Gardens divorce lawyers; Jupiter alimony attorneys; grandparents’ rights attorneys; and father’s rights attorneys. For more information or to schedule a consultation call (561) 844-1200 or visit the firm’s website, www.nugentlawfirm.com.