If you practice in Florida, the message from recent appellate decisions and rule amendments is loud and clear: professionalism isn’t optional—and neither is following the rules.
Let’s break down three recent developments that every litigator (especially in family law) should have on their radar.
🎤 1. Depositions: Stop Coaching, Stop Blocking
The Florida Supreme Court just doubled down on something we all should already know—but apparently needs repeating.
Under the newly emphasized professionalism expectations in In re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Case No. SC2025-1347 (Mar. 19, 2026), lawyers cannot prevent a deponent from answering questions unless:
- A privilege applies
- It’s necessary to enforce a court-ordered limitation
- It’s tied to a motion to terminate or limit the deposition
That aligns directly with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310, which also reminds us:
- Objections must be concise
- Must be nonargumentative
- Must be nonsuggestive
Translation:
No speeches. No coaching. No “form… if you remember… if you understand… if you can answer…”
We all know what that sounds like—and now the Court is making it clear: knock it off.
👨👩👧 2. Ramos v. Hunter: You Can’t Win What You Didn’t Ask For
In Ramos v. Hunter, 4D2025-0369 (4th DCA 2026), the trial court made a classic mistake: it awarded the mother majority timesharing—even though that relief was never requested or noticed for hearing.
The Fourth DCA reversed. Rightfully so.
Two key takeaways:
- Due process still matters (yes, even in family court)
- You don’t get relief just because the judge thinks it’s a good idea
The court also clarified that § 61.13001 (relocation statute) didn’t apply because the move happened before the paternity action was filed.
👉 Practical tip:
If you want majority timesharing—plead it, notice it, and prove it. Don’t assume the court will fill in the blanks.
📬 3. Smith v. Smith: “I Don’t Work There” Isn’t Enough
In Smith v. Smith, 3D25-0707 (3d DCA Mar. 11, 2026), the defendant tried to dodge service by claiming she didn’t work at the location where process was accepted.
The problem? Her evidence was… not great.
- An unverified motion
- A hearsay letter
That’s it.
The court held:
- A facially valid return of service creates a presumption of valid service
- The burden shifts to the defendant to rebut it with clear and convincing evidence
- Hearsay and unsworn statements don’t cut it
Also notable:
The defendant wasn’t even entitled to an evidentiary hearing because her “evidence” wasn’t admissible in the first place.
👉 Lesson:
If you’re challenging service, bring real evidence—or don’t bother.
📄 Bonus: No Transcript, No Reversal
In Harris v. Lagana, 6D2025-0548 (6th DCA Mar. 13, 2026), the appellate court affirmed a dismissal largely because… there was no transcript.
It’s a simple but painful reminder:
If it’s not in the record, it didn’t happen.
⚖️ Bottom Line
Florida courts are sending a consistent message:
- Be professional
- Follow procedural rules
- Respect due process
- And bring actual evidence
Or, in plain English:
👉 Don’t be that lawyer.