Bell v. Bell,
Case No. 4D10-5122

This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties’ assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client’s main issues were (1) the trial court’s failure to award her half of the husband’s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) the trial court’s failure to make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) agreed with our position that the trial court had erred in failing to award our client half of the husband’s accounts receivable. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. On remand to the trial court, the former husband took the position that the issue required an evidentiary hearing to determine the new equitable distribution of the asset. We opposed the need for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that the Fourth DCA had clearly stated in its written opinion that the value of the omitted account receivable was $660,611 based on undisputed testimony from the trial. The trial court agreed and entered an order denying the former husband’s demand for an evidentiary hearing.

The former husband next argued that the former wife should receive the omitted equitable distribution amount as an in-kind distribution (i.e. in assets of the business such as the notes themselves). We opposed the former husband’s position and argued that the former wife should receive the omitted amount as a cash distribution. The trial court received proposed Final Judgments from the parties reflecting the parties’ positions. On June 7, 2012 the trial court rendered an Amended Final Judgment that conformed to the appellate court’s mandate and also ordered that the omitted amount would be payable to former wife in cash in an amended equalization payment.

This outcome preserved the positive result we achieved in the appellate court for our client, saved her the additional attorney’s fees associated with a lengthy evidentiary hearing following remand, and obtained an order that the former husband must pay her the omitted equitable distribution amount in cash.

L.K. v. Department of Children and Families, 4D10 – 5124
June 15, 2011

The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed a final order terminating L.K.’s parental rights as to her daughter, G.B. The Department initiated dependency proceedings regarding G.B and took her into the Department’s custody. Shortly thereafter, L.K. was incarcerated for narcotics. The evidence showed that during L.K.’s incarceration, she made several attempts to contact G.B. as well as inquire about G.B’s general well-being through another family member. The Department then filed a petition for termination of parental rights on the basis of abandonment.  The trial court held that L.K. had not made a sufficient effort to establish a substantial relationship with G.B. and that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate her parental rights.  In so finding, the trial court ruled that L.K’s attempts to substantially comply with her case plan were irrelevant to its determination of abandonment.

L.K. argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that L.K. substantially complied with her case plan.  The Fourth District agreed.  In reversing, the Fourth District cited B.T. v. Department of Children and Families, which held that incarceration is a factor that can be considered in abandonment cases, but the parent’s efforts to assume parental duties while incarcerated must also be considered in light of the limited opportunities to assume those duties while in prison.  16 So.3d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).  The Fourth District held that the trial court should have considered L.K.’s attempts to substantially comply with her case plan before terminating her parental rights.

Barrueta v. State of Florida, 4D10-2084
June 15, 2011

The Fourth District Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from a revocation of probation and resulting judgment and sentence. The appellant was on probation following a conviction on one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The State later obtained revocation of appellant’s probation and the trial court sentenced appellant on both of those counts. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant on the conspiracy count because the State’s warrant failed to allege a violation as to that count. The Fourth District agreed, relying on Baker v. State, 750 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). As a result, the Fourth District reversed the revocation, judgment, and sentence as to the conspiracy count, although it affirmed on the trafficking count. The Fourth District also remanded for entry of a more specific and detailed written judgment.