Wolt & Associates, P.A.

It is error for a trial court not to make findings as to whether a retirement account is marital, non-marital or a combination of the two if a retirement account exists. See Coleman v.Bland 36 FLW D2110a

No. A putative father has no standing to assert a paternity action concerning a child conceived and born to a mother who is in an intact marriage. This is due to the public policy considerations of maintaining families. The woman’s Husband is the legal father of the child.l

After a Final judgment is entered a party seeking to change the custody or parenting plan must plead and prove both of the following: 1) that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred that was not anticipated at the time the Final judgment was entered and 2) Whether the child’s welfare will be promoted by a change in custody. The party seeking modification has the extraordinary burden of proving both. The court in Ragle v. Ragle 36 FLW D1790 reiterated several prior court holdings finding that a failure of the parents  to communicate or get along is NOT a substantial change in circumstances. Without meeting this burden n the court cannot entertain the second prong of the “extraordinary burden test.”

There is no contempt power unless payment is categorized as support. In Simpson v. Simpson 36FLW D1882b the Husband agreed to pay the Wife’s car payment as part of equitable distribution. The 4th DCA found that the Trail Court cannot use its contempt powers to settle disputes regarding rights to property.

The trial court has authority to enter an order allowing a payor to pay a reduced amount upon findings of inability to pay the amount ordered. The difference will continue to accrue as an arrearage until the payor spouse files and has an Order entered reducing the amount he or she pays. This is compatible to a purge amount in a contempt case and appropriate where there is no willful contempt, i.e., you’re not paying because you can’t.m  See Brown v. Brown, 36 FLW D1890b

The parent who wants to relocate with the minor child of the parties has the burden of proof if the other parent will not agree. The parent seeking to relocate must file and ask for the court’s permission to relocate. That parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that  that relocation is in the best interest of the child. If the relocating parent can meet that burden, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show that the relocation is not in the child’s best interest.

In determining whether a move is in the child’s best interest the court considers all the factors under sections 61.13001 (7) Fla. Stat.

If a respondent in a paternity action files an Acknowledgment of Paternity the court may not order a DNA test; and any such order shall be quashed. State of Fla DOR in behalf of Judy Reyes v. Kathcart 36 FLW D1873a.

It depends on whether a final Judgment has been entered or not. The relevant rules of court authorize the trial court to permit the Estate to be substituted as a party in the event of death provided the claim is not extinguished by death. Florida law provides that the death of a spouse prior to the entry of a Final Judgment  terminates the suit and requires dismissal of same. See King v. King 36 FLW D1651a

The trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony to the Wife in a 7-year marriage at a rate of $3,500.00 per month in Draulans v. Draulans 36 FLW D2065b, however did not specify in the order an end date for payments. The award was for purposes of completing her education. It is error to award rehabilitative alimony without a termination date.  See May v. Mayo 619 So2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).