Source: https://eddiestephens.com/2018/02/25/stephens-squibs-january-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:58:00+00:00

Document:
Khetarpal v. Khetarpal, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Final judgment remanded for clarification when court found former wife needed $5,200 per month in alimony but only award $3,964.62 per month.
Brunsman v. Brunsman, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Trial court erred ordering non-modifiable durational alimony.
Reidy v. Reidy, 4 Fla.L.Weekly D16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Trial court erred awarding alimony pending appeal when alimony request denied in final judgment. Trial court applied erroneous “need and ability to pay” standard. Fl.R.App.Pro. Rule 9.600(c)(1) provides that pending appeal, lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to make “awards necessary to protect welfare and rights of any party pending appeal”.
DOR v. Augustin, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D93 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2018). Trial court’s final judgment disestablishing paternity reversed when there was no newly discovered evidence relating to paternity of child since initial paternity determination.
Price v. Price, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D112 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018). Trial Court erred failing to distribute personal property listed in parties’ financial affidavit.
Verrier v, Oaks, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D191 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018). Trial court properly granted modification for timesharing but evidence did not support restrictions imposed.
Wohlberg v. Conner, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Provision stating that if husband exercised 6 consecutive months of visitation he would move to 50/50 timesharing found to be ambiguous and remanded to consider extrinsic evidence to determine if parties meant 6 months after final judgment or any consecutive 6 month period.
McNulty v. Bowser, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Appellate fees are awardable in paternity cases despite lack of explicit authority in statute. Recedes from precedent set in Starkey v Linn, 727 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Furman v. Furman, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D113 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018). Trial court erred disqualifying attorney who drafted prenuptial agreement without evidentiary hearing based on other attorney’s representations and unverified allegations. In addition, if disqualification was appropriate, it would only apply to the hearing where attorney was a material witness, not entire case.
Robinson v. Robinson, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Action to set aside final judgment based on intrinsic fraud barred because it was filed more than a year after final judgment rendered and therefore untimely.
Arancibia v. Castillo, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D85 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2018). Court did have jurisdiction to vacate order dismissing paternity action when motion timely filed.
Lockett v. Lockett, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D74 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2017). Trial Court erred striking Husband’s request for alimony as a sanction for a discovery violation when the Court failed to find the violation was “deliberate or willful”.
Leija v. Bryd, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Trial court erred summarily denying legally sufficient motion to dissolve injunction without affording appellant meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Pickett v. Copeland, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Multiple instances of stalking are not required to obtain stalking injunction. In this case, the injunction was reversed because there was insufficient support to support it.
Lopez v. Hall, 43 Fla.L.Weekly S11 (Fla. 2018). Supreme Court resolves conflict and confirms it is permissible to award attorney’s fees pursuant to 57.105 in injunction proceedings. Strong dissent by Justice Pariente.
Trowell v. Crawford, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D83 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2017). Appeal challenging repeat violence injunction dismissed as moot when injunction was dismissed. Strong dissent because petitioner was incarcerated criminal who filed against a detention officer and this afforded petitioner opportunity to interfere with jail operations and therefore issue should be decided on its merits.
Gaynor v. Inod, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Trial court erred when it summarily denied, without an evidentiary hearing, respondent’s motion to dissolve injunction when respondent was incarcerated and injunction prevented him from participating in re-entry and work release programs.
Akin v. Jacobs, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Injunction against stalking reversed when based on hearsay and speculative evidence.
Dixon v. Dixon, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D115 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018). Ordinarily, a child support order terminates automatically on the child’s 18th birthday unless otherwise addressed. A final judgment’s silence on the continuing obligation of support after the child’s 18th birthday results in the support obligation automatically terminating on child’s 18th birthday.

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