Family law never sleeps—and neither do the appellate courts. This week’s batch of opinions out of the Third District Court of Appeal reads like a highlight reel of what makes Florida family law both fascinating and occasionally absurd. From emotional support dogs to relocation battles, void divorces, and attorney’s fees about attorney’s fees, here’s what you need to know.
1. Kraushaar v. Kraushaar: When Fido Becomes a Discovery Fight
Nothing says “modern divorce” like litigating over the parties’ emotional support dog. In Kraushaar, the husband tried to use the dog’s ESA status as leverage in equitable distribution. The trial court responded by compelling the wife to hand over her medical records.
The Third DCA said: Nope. Too far.
While the court acknowledged that certain medical records might become relevant if a spouse uses an ESA claim to tip the scale, unfettered access to medical history is a step too intrusive without tight safeguards. Medical records are confidential, and improper disclosure causes irreparable harm—making certiorari appropriate.
Takeaway:
Claiming the dog as an emotional support animal does not open the door to a fishing expedition through a spouse’s medical history. Discovery is not a free-for-all, even when pets are involved.
2. Harman v. Alonso: Relocation Isn’t Automatically “Traumatic”
In Harman, the trial court denied a mother’s request to relocate her children to California. The court leaned on findings like: they’d need new schools, new routines, new friends, and life would be… different.
The Third DCA’s response? That’s literally what relocation means.
Section 61.13001(7) explicitly says that these inherent consequences are not determinative in relocation cases. The trial court also veered into speculative concerns about the mother’s future finances and effectively used a presumption against relocation—something the statute expressly prohibits.
Even more notably, when the trial court concluded the parties’ evidence was in “equipoise,” that actually meant the father failed to meet the burden of proving relocation was not in the children’s best interests.
Takeaway:
A relocation case can’t be denied just because moving is inconvenient or because both parents are capable. The statute sets a clear framework—and speculative doom forecasting isn’t part of it.
3. Wax v. Friedman: Yes, a Marriage Can Be “Undivorced”
In Wax, the trial court dissolved the parties’ marriage but reserved jurisdiction over all other issues. That raised a jurisdictional question: was the partial judgment final? The Third DCA said yes—it’s appealable.
Unfortunately for the parties, that wasn’t the biggest issue.
Neither spouse provided the required corroborating evidence of Florida residency, which is essential to give the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage. The parties can’t waive the residency proof requirement, and an admission isn’t enough.
Result: Void judgment. Start over.
Takeaway:
You can’t get divorced in Florida without actual, statutory proof that you live in Florida. No shortcuts. No waivers. No exceptions.
4. Schultheis v. Schultheis: Fees on Fees on Fees? Not in Florida
And then there’s Schultheis, where the trial court awarded fees to a non-party attorney for the time he spent litigating his own fees. The Third DCA was not impressed.
Section 61.16(1) doesn’t authorize “fees for fees,” especially not for a non-party attorney trying to get paid for the time he spent trying… to get paid.
Not only was the award reversed—the court also certified conflict, signaling this may travel up the appellate ladder.
Takeaway:
You can’t bill the other side for the time you spent fighting about your bill. Nice try, though.
Final Thoughts
This week’s lineup showcases classic Florida family law themes:
- Discovery boundaries (especially about pets) still matter.
- Relocation law continues to trip up trial courts when they rely on improper factors.
- Jurisdictional requirements in divorce cases are strict and unforgiving.
- Attorney’s fee statutes are not blank checks.
Each case reinforces a familiar truth: even in a system overflowing with discretion, the statutes and procedural rules still set the guardrails.