If you practice Florida family law long enough, you eventually realize two things:
- The Fourth DCA really wants trial judges to make findings; and
- Someone is always forgetting to pay child support.
This week’s appellate opinions delivered a little bit of everything: retroactive child support, stalking injunction reversals, missing transcripts, improperly classified brokerage accounts, and even a dispute over family photos stored on a hard drive. In other words, a completely normal week in family court.
“Close Enough” Is Apparently Not a Valuation Method
In Winegar v. Winegar, the Fourth DCA reminded trial courts that equitable distribution requires actual findings — not vibes.
The trial court valued Husband’s business by essentially splitting the difference between the parties’ competing valuations without explaining why. The appellate court was unimpressed. The Fourth DCA also reversed portions of the ruling involving temporary support arrearages, attorney’s fees, and the classification of a brokerage account that Husband opened before the marriage.
Takeaway: if you are going to distribute assets, liabilities, fees, and support obligations, you have to show your work. “Because I said so” remains ineffective appellate insulation.
Retroactive Child Support Means Retroactive Child Support
In Carter v. Carter, Husband admitted he had not been paying support while the child lived exclusively with Wife during the separation. Wife’s forensic accountant presented unrebutted testimony calculating retroactive support.
The trial court still declined to award it.
The Fourth DCA reversed, which is about as surprising as discovering a parenting plan dispute over extracurricular activities.
But the case also included a genuinely modern family-law issue: the parties’ family photos and videos stored on Husband’s hard drive. The appellate court held those digital memories constituted marital assets that needed to be identified and distributed.
So yes — your hard drive may now be part of equitable distribution.
Double-Texting Is Still Not Stalking
In Carvajal v. Ferretti, the Fourth DCA reversed a stalking injunction after concluding that multiple messages sent minutes apart through different apps constituted a single incident — not separate acts of harassment.
The court also found that allegedly disparaging social media posts and communications about child support payments did not amount to the type of objectively distressing conduct required under the statute.
Translation: being annoying, argumentative, or dramatic on social media still does not automatically qualify as stalking.
Florida family lawyers everywhere collectively exhaled.
Guardians ad Litem Are Not Free
In Macdonald v. Macdonald, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem in connection with a temporary relocation dispute and ordered Wife to pay the entire cost.
The problem? No findings regarding Wife’s ability to pay.
The Fourth DCA reversed, reminding courts that even temporary allocations of GAL fees require the necessary financial findings or, at minimum, a deferral supported by the record.
A good reminder that in family court, someone always gets the invoice.
Bring the Transcript. Preferably All of It.
In Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, the Fifth DCA addressed a challenge to a magistrate’s recommended order. Husband timely filed his motion to vacate, scheduled the hearing, and provided most — but not all — of the trial transcripts.
The trial court summarily denied the motion based solely on the incomplete record.
The Fifth DCA reversed, holding the court should have considered whether Husband substantially complied with Rule 12.490 before shutting the door entirely.
Appellate lesson of the week: procedural rules matter, but so does common sense.
Jurisdiction Still Matters
Finally, in Thomas v. Department of Revenue, the court held that an obligee parent could not directly seek judicial review of an administrative support order because the governing statute only authorized such review for the obligor parent and the Department.
In other words: wrong procedural vehicle, wrong court.
As always, jurisdiction remains undefeated.
Final Thoughts
This week’s opinions collectively reinforce a few timeless family-law principles:
- Trial courts must make actual findings.
- Digital assets are still assets.
- Retroactive child support is not optional when the evidence supports it.
- Not every unpleasant interaction is stalking.
- Appellate courts really, really want complete records.
And perhaps most importantly:
If your ruling cannot survive basic math and a written explanation, the Fourth DCA is probably going to notice.
Source cases: Winegar v. Winegar, Carter v. Carter, Carvajal v. Ferretti, Macdonald v. Macdonald, Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, and Thomas v. Department of Revenue.
Leave a Reply