Florida’s appellate courts have been busy this September, weighing in on alimony, domestic violence injunctions, child custody, and even how a marital settlement agreement can slam the door shut on later fraud claims. Here are some of the highlights — and lowlights — from the latest opinions.
Melton v. Melton (5th DCA, Sept. 12, 2025)
The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s rulings because there was no transcript provided — always a reminder that a record matters. But one error was too glaring to ignore: the husband was ordered to pay temporary alimony and child support in an amount that exceeded his monthly surplus. In other words, the numbers didn’t add up. The 5th DCA sent it back, noting the trial court abused its discretion by failing to explain how the husband could realistically cover those obligations.
Takeaway: Judges can’t order payments that outpace actual income — math still matters in family court.
Thompson v. Vilches (3d DCA, Sept. 10, 2025)
A permanent domestic violence injunction gave the father temporary full custody after the mother’s arrest. Later, the criminal court found the mother immune under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. She tried to use that to vacate the injunction. The trial court said no, and the 3d DCA affirmed, pointing again to the lack of a full record. Still, the affirmance was without prejudice, meaning custody and timesharing can be revisited in separate proceedings.
Takeaway: Stand Your Ground can complicate domestic cases, but an injunction won’t automatically vanish just because criminal immunity is later granted.
Rosa v. Heredia (5th DCA, Sept. 12, 2025)
The 5th DCA reversed a domestic violence injunction because the evidence wasn’t there. The petitioner relied on vague, year-old allegations from another state and admitted she kept contacting the respondent despite being asked to stop. Without proof of imminent danger, the injunction couldn’t stand.
Takeaway: Domestic violence injunctions require competent, substantial evidence — speculation and old allegations won’t cut it.
Alan v. West (3d DCA, Sept. 10, 2025)
Here, the trial court modified custody and child support in favor of the father, granting him sole parental responsibility. The 3d DCA upheld the order, noting there was competent, substantial evidence, and the issue of sole responsibility was tried by consent.
Takeaway: If both sides litigate an issue, even without formal pleadings, the court can decide it.
Maradona v. Villafañe (3d DCA, Sept. 10, 2025)
This one reads like a cautionary tale. A former husband alleged that his ex-wife secretly bought U.S. properties with his money before their marital settlement agreement (MSA). But the MSA had a broad waiver clause, and the court found that closed the door. The supposed “fraud” was later discovered with a simple Google search — something the husband could have done long before signing. The appellate court upheld summary judgment for the wife’s estate. It also reversed a contempt order against the husband for procedural defects.
Takeaway: An MSA waiver means what it says, and courts won’t rescue you from your failure to Google before you sign.
Golubtsova v. Budaev (3d DCA, Sept. 10, 2025)
A co-owner accused another of diverting rents to a private account and filed a lis pendens. The court dissolved it, ruling that the complaint sought only money damages, not any claim tied to ownership of the property.
Takeaway: Lis pendens is for disputes about property rights, not for chasing money.
Dep’t of Children & Families v. K.R. (4th DCA, Sept. 10, 2025)
The trial court ruled on a putative father’s paternity petition without giving DCF proper notice, even though the child had already been adjudicated dependent after the mother’s death. The 4th DCA reversed, finding a due process violation.
Takeaway: Agencies like DCF must get notice and a fair chance to be heard when dependency and paternity issues overlap.
Hart v. Moore ex rel. Hart (4th DCA, Sept. 8, 2025)
A father moved to dissolve a domestic violence injunction entered for his children. He showed evidence of changed circumstances, and the children’s representative presented none. The trial court still denied the motion, but the 4th DCA reversed.
Takeaway: Domestic violence injunctions aren’t forever — they can and should be dissolved when circumstances change.
Final Thoughts
This batch of cases underscores some recurring themes in Florida family law:
- Records matter — without a transcript, appeals are uphill battles.
- Math matters — courts can’t order support beyond income.
- Evidence matters — injunctions rise or fall on competent proof.
- Waivers matter — an MSA can end disputes, even if you later find something on Google.
For practitioners, these cases are reminders to protect the record, scrutinize financial math, and take waiver language seriously. For clients, they’re proof that the details — from what you sign to what you present in court — can make or break the outcome.