As Florida family lawyers, staying up-to-date on appellate rulings is critical—especially when decisions clarify or reshape how we approach issues like alimony modification, appellate fees in paternity cases, prenuptial agreement enforcement, and injunctions for protection. Below is a concise analysis of four notable cases released at the end of April and beginning of May 2025.
🔹 Beans v. Beans, No. 1D2021-3358 (Fla. 1st DCA, Apr. 30, 2025)
Issue: Alimony Modification – Legal Standard Must Match 61.08 Factors
The First DCA reinforced, in this three-judge panel, when courts evaluate a petition to modify alimony under § 61.14, they must need not apply the economic factors outlined in § 61.08— just the change in circumstances.
Key Takeaway:
In the First DCA, 61.08 may not even apply in modification cases. Only 61.14 in the First DCA!
🔹 Perez-Palma v. Rodriguez, No. 3D24-0251 (Fla. 3d DCA, Apr. 30, 2025)
Issue: Attorney’s Fees in Paternity Appeals – Statutory Silence Means No Entitlement
The Third DCA ruled that § 742.045, which governs attorney’s fees in paternity proceedings, does not extend to appellate proceedings. The court certified conflict, signaling likely Supreme Court review.
Key Takeaway:
If you’re representing a client in a paternity appeal, don’t assume statutory entitlement to attorney’s fees. This case underscores the importance of reserving and preserving claims for fees via contract or other statutory authority where available.
🔹 Adelson v. Kalter, No. 3D24-0337 (Fla. 3d DCA, Apr. 30, 2025)
Issue: Prenuptial Agreement & Testamentary Gifts
The Third DCA held that when a decedent’s trust or will leaves more than what a prenuptial agreement required, that satisfies the prenup, and the surviving spouse is not entitled to a double dip.
Key Takeaway:
This case is a reminder that greater-than-required testamentary gifts fulfill prenup obligations. Estate planning lawyers and family lawyers drafting or enforcing prenups should make sure clients understand this principle to avoid unnecessary litigation.
🔹 Adams v. Cox, No. 5D2023-1821 (Fla. 5th DCA, May 2, 2025)
Issue: Injunction for Dating Violence – Insufficient Evidence and Due Process Violation
The Fifth DCA reversed an injunction, finding that the petitioner’s fear of violence was based only on unverified texts and calls, not competent, substantial evidence of imminent danger. Moreover, the court found a due process violation, as the respondent was denied the chance to present evidence or cross-examine.
Key Takeaway:
Courts must adhere to evidentiary and due process standards when issuing injunctions. Allegations alone, especially based on unauthenticated electronic communications, are not enough. For respondents, this decision reinforces the importance of objecting to procedural violations.
⚖️ Conclusion
These cases reflect Florida courts’ continued efforts to clarify and enforce statutory boundaries in family law:
- Alimony modifications must be grounded in a full § 61.08 analysis.
- Attorney’s fees in paternity appeals may not be recoverable under current law.
- Prenup promises are satisfied when testamentary gifts exceed agreed amounts.
- Injunctions must meet evidentiary thresholds and protect due process.
As always, thoughtful advocacy and a firm grasp of evolving case law are your best tools. Bookmark this post or share it with your colleagues—Florida family law is always moving, and so should we.