Source: https://www.crabtreelaw.com/complex-family-law-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:45:56+00:00

Document:
Crabtree & Auslander represented a husband before the Fourth District Court of Appeal in an action involving a nine-figure marital estate. The firm successfully reversed a trial court order calling for the client to make a 7.6 million dollar interim marital asset distribution.
The firm was co-counsel with a leading Miami family law firm in the the trial court for a two-week trial and then represented the husband on appeal in the Third District Court of Appeal in a high-profile, nine-figure dissolution of marriage case that turned on the enforceability of a pre-nuptial agreement.
Viscito v. Viscito, 2017 WL 3611549 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 23, 2017).
The firm reversed an attorney’s fees and costs judgment against the client when following their conditional grant by the appellate court, the trial judge failed to hear evidence regarding the parties’ financial resources, the former wife’s need for appellate fees or the former husband’s ability to pay.
Pataro v. Pataro, 2017 WL 3400596 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2017).
The firm successfully reversed the entry of an order setting aside the former spouses’ marital settlement agreement as incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution. Based on the firm’s research and analysis, the court recognized there was no case law specifically supporting the former wife’s position that a final judgment and marital settlement agreement can be set aside purely as a sanction.
Gromet v. Jensen, 201 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
The firm successfully reversed determinations by the trial judge that non-marital assets had been commingled so as to become assets subject to equitable distribution, and that retirement accounts had so enhanced in value as to transform into marital assets.
Valdes v. Valdes, 62 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
The firm represented the wife in protracted post-dissolution litigation occurring before the trial and appellate courts that focused upon the husband’s incomplete financial disclosure before, during, and after trial. The case culminated in a Third District Court of Appeal opinion forcing the husband to account for, and the trial court to distribute amounts to the wife based on an error of over one million dollars.
Aburos v. Aburos, 34 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
The firm handled the successful appellate representation of a husband that freed him, on an emergency basis, from jail for contempt pending appeal, and then successfully argued for the reversal of the contempt order on grounds that it improperly imputed to the husband his sisters’ ability to pay the contempt purge while ignoring his own ability to pay it.
Martinez v. Kurt, 9 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
The firm represented a Spanish husband in an international custody appeal concerning his U.S.-citizen children living in Turkey with his Turkish former wife. In a successful appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, the former wife was forced the wife to abide by the parties’ marital settlement agreement provision concerning the children’s international schooling in Turkey.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.