Every week, Florida’s appellate courts remind us that trial judges, lawyers, and litigants must follow the rules—even when the result seems obvious or expedient. This week’s opinions feature a common theme: courts correcting attempts to take shortcuts.

You Can’t Impute Income Just Because Someone Can Work

In Dore v. Baptiste, No. 4D2025-1635, 2026 WL 201239 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2026), the Fourth District reversed a child support order where the trial court imputed full-time minimum wage income to a mother. The problem? The court’s reasoning was essentially that there was no evidence she was physically or mentally incapable of working full-time.

The appellate court explained that’s not enough.

To impute income, the court must determine whether the parent is voluntarily underemployed, not merely capable of working more hours. In making that determination, the court must consider caregiving responsibilities and the realities of the parent’s situation. Because the income finding was flawed, the retroactive child support award also had to be reversed.

Takeaway: Being able to work more is not the same thing as choosing to work less.

Your Attorney’s Therapy Records Are Not Discovery

In what may be the most unusual case of the week, Thomas-McDonald v. Silva, No. 3D25-2466, 2026 WL 241605 (Fla. 3d DCA May 20, 2026), involved a guardianship fee dispute.

A guardian opposing a fee request sought discovery regarding the ward attorney’s mental health treatment records. The trial court ordered the attorney to answer interrogatories that would have disclosed those records.

The Third District quickly shut that down.

The court held the records were protected by Florida’s psychotherapist-patient privilege and had no meaningful connection to any claim or defense in the fee dispute. The fact that the attorney had answered deposition questions about whether she had previously seen a psychiatrist did not suddenly make her treatment records fair game.

Takeaway: Discovery is broad, but it is not limitless—and privileged mental health records remain privileged.

Income Deduction Orders Have Limits

In Torres-Melendez v. Melendez-Andrade, No. 5D2024-2457, 2026 WL 261487 (Fla. 5th DCA May 22, 2026), the Fifth District addressed the use of income deduction orders (“IDOs”) to collect attorney’s fees.

The trial court entered IDOs to collect all attorney’s fees awarded to the former husband. The appellate court held that was too broad.

Florida law allows IDOs for attorney’s fees incurred in establishing or enforcing support obligations, but not necessarily for every fee awarded in a family law case. The matter was sent back for the trial court to determine which fees were actually related to alimony or child support enforcement.

Takeaway: Not every attorney’s fee award can be collected through payroll deduction.

When the Judge Joins the Law Firm

The Fifth District also issued a significant opinion in Smith-Fullerton v. Fullerton, No. 5D2025-2114 (Fla. 5th DCA May 29, 2026).

A judge who had previously presided over the divorce case left the bench and became a partner at the law firm representing the husband. The wife moved to disqualify the firm.

The law firm argued the former judge had been screened from the case. Unfortunately for the firm, the required procedures were not followed.

The court found that the firm’s evidence consisted largely of unsworn statements, and the firm failed to provide the written notice required by Rule 4-1.12(c), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Because the former judge had participated “personally and substantially” in the case while on the bench, the conflict was imputed to the entire firm.

Result: disqualification.

Takeaway: When a former judge joins a law firm, strict compliance with the screening rules is not optional.

Homestead Still Means Homestead

Finally, in Schiro v. Elliott, No. 2D2025-2366 (Fla. 2d DCA May 29, 2026), the Second District reminded everyone that Florida homestead protections remain among the strongest in the country.

The dispute involved a residence held in a revocable trust. Creditors argued the property should be available to satisfy estate debts and that the decedent’s will required its sale.

The appellate court disagreed.

Because the decedent retained the right to revoke the trust, the property retained its homestead character. That protection passed to the decedent’s adult children. The court also rejected the argument that the property should be sold to satisfy creditors simply because of language in the will.

Takeaway: Placing homestead property into a revocable trust generally does not destroy its constitutional protections.

Final Thoughts

This week’s appellate theme could be summarized in two words: follow the rules.

You cannot impute income without evidence of voluntary underemployment. Dore. You cannot obtain privileged therapy records because you’re curious. Thomas-McDonald. You cannot use income deduction orders beyond their statutory limits. Torres-Melendez. You cannot ignore the screening requirements when a former judge joins your firm. Smith-Fullerton. And you cannot casually defeat Florida homestead protections. Schiro.

The appellate courts spent the week reminding everyone that shortcuts often lead directly to reversal.