Florida family law frequently intersects with complex issues such as interstate custody conflicts and business ownership during divorce proceedings. Two recent cases—Mattingly v. Hatfield and Hurley v. Veon—highlight the nuances of these legal challenges. Here’s what they reveal about protecting parental rights and understanding equitable ownership in divorce cases.
Mattingly v. Hatfield: Navigating Grandparent Visitation Across State Lines
Grandparent visitation rights vary widely across states, as demonstrated in Mattingly v. Hatfield (2024). This case involved a grandmother enforcing a Kentucky visitation order in Florida after the child’s parents moved there. Kentucky law grants grandparents broader visitation rights, permitting courts to award visitation against the wishes of both parents if it is deemed in the child’s best interest.
Florida, however, provides parents with greater autonomy in raising their children, as established in cases like Beagle v. Beagle and Richardson v. Richardson. These precedents emphasize parents’ constitutional right to determine their child’s care and upbringing, free from unwarranted governmental interference – and even interference from grandparents!
Despite these differences, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Florida courts to enforce out-of-state orders, as the Florida Supreme Court recognized in Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs. In this case, the parents argued that their divorce constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the visitation order. However, the court ruled otherwise, finding that the divorce was anticipated and did not materially impact the child’s relationship with the grandmother.
Key Takeaway: Florida parents facing out-of-state visitation orders must understand the interplay between state laws and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. These cases require careful legal navigation to balance parental rights and compliance with interstate judgments.
Hurley v. Veon: Determining Equitable Ownership in Divorce
The division of business interests during a divorce can be contentious, especially when equitable ownership is disputed. In Hurley v. Veon (2024), the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether the former husband retained an equitable ownership interest in a company despite transferring legal ownership to another family member.
The court examined three key factors to determine equitable ownership:
- Control: The primary factor, requiring active or substantial involvement in the business’s operations. In this case, the former husband lacked decision-making power and control over the company’s profits and dividends.
- Family Relationships: The court looked for evidence of the business being operated for the former husband’s benefit by a compliant or uninvolved family member. This was not evident in this case, as the family relationship had deteriorated.
- Receipt of Benefits: The absence of arrangements for the former husband to reacquire ownership or benefit from the business weighed against finding equitable ownership.
Ultimately, the court found no competent evidence that the former husband retained equitable ownership, emphasizing the need for factual evidence to support such claims.
Key Takeaway: In divorce proceedings, equitable ownership requires demonstrating substantial control, benefit, or influence over the business in question. Parties must provide detailed evidence to substantiate their claims.
Why These Cases Matter
From protecting parental rights to dividing complex assets, Florida family law is full of intricate legal challenges.
At Fell Law Group, we are committed to helping you navigate these complexities. Whether you’re facing interstate custody disputes or resolving business ownership during divorce, we provide the legal expertise and compassionate guidance you need.
Fell out of love? Call Fell Law Group! We’ll help pick you back up.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward resolving your family law issues.