If you ever wanted proof that Florida family law appeals are less about dramatic courtroom speeches and more about paperwork, procedure, and judges who really mean it when they say “best interests,” the cases from November 26, 2025 delivered.
This week gave us:
- a relocation appeal sunk by a missing transcript (shocking!),
- a rehearing/appeal timing fight where the rules did exactly what they say,
- a timesharing suspension ordered at a case management conference (spoiler: nope),
- a shared parental responsibility ruling reversed because the court forgot to write the findings down,
- and a disqualification case featuring a successor judge who apparently confused “order” with “therapy session.”
Let’s dig in.
1. Puertas v. Ruiz: No Transcript, No Rescue
Headline lesson: If you want the DCA to reverse something, you have to show them what happened.
In Puertas v. Ruiz, Dad appealed a final order granting Mom’s relocation petition and the resulting amended parenting plan. He argued the trial court misapplied facts and law, and claimed a due process violation when Mom reopened evidence and he supposedly got shut out. Florida Courts Media
The Third DCA basically said: “Cool story… but where’s the transcript?”
Because no transcript of the final hearing was provided, the appellate court couldn’t evaluate the factual disputes. Under the classic Applegate rule, the trial court’s decision gets a presumption of correctness unless the record proves otherwise. So the DCA affirmed. Florida Courts Media
Important substantive nugget: Dad also argued the trial court should have separately analyzed the parenting plan modification factors in §61.13(3) in addition to the relocation factors in §61.13001(7). The Third rejected that—once relocation is granted, the trial court has discretion to craft a workable parenting plan without doing a second, independent §61.13(3) modification analysis, especially when the old plan is “untenable.” Florida Courts Media
Practice takeaway:
Bring the transcript. Always. And if you’re opposing relocation, remember that relocation findings can carry the parenting-plan rewrite with them.
2. Miller v. Jiyon Ko: Rehearing Isn’t Dead Just Because Someone Hit “Appeal”
Headline lesson: A timely motion for rehearing pauses the appeal train, even if the notice of appeal forgot to say so.
In Miller v. Jiyon Ko, Husband tried to declare an amended final judgment void, claiming the trial court lost jurisdiction once Wife filed her notice of appeal. The Third DCA said nope. Case Law+1
Here’s why: Wife filed a timely and authorized motion for rehearing, which tolled rendition of the original final judgment. Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C), the notice of appeal had to be held in abeyance until the rehearing motion was resolved. That meant the trial court kept jurisdiction to enter the amended final judgment. Florida Courts Media
Husband argued Wife’s notice of appeal was defective because it didn’t mention the pending rehearing motion as required by Rule 9.110(d). The court called that a paperwork oopsie, not a magical rehearing-killer. The rehearing stayed alive; jurisdiction stayed alive. Case Law+1
Practice takeaway:
If rehearing is timely, the trial court’s still driving, even if somebody jumps out of the car yelling “appeal!”
3. Luna v. Hernandez: Case Management Conference = Not a Surprise Trial
Headline lesson: You can’t ambush someone’s timesharing at a status conference.
In Luna v. Hernandez, the trial court entered a nonfinal order suspending Mom’s timesharing, giving Dad exclusive timesharing for a defined period, and blocking Mom’s contact with the child—after parental alienation accusations. The problem wasn’t the allegation; it was the process. Florida Courts Media
The change was ordered during a case management conference, and the notice for that conference didn’t warn anyone that timesharing could be litigated or modified. The Third DCA reversed because the parties weren’t given proper notice and opportunity to prepare—classic procedural due process. Florida Courts Media
Practice takeaway:
If you want emergency or major timesharing relief, set it for a real hearing with real notice. “Surprise! You don’t get your kid this month” isn’t a thing.
4. Wolverton v. Wolverton: “Best Interests” Means You Have to Show Your Work
Headline lesson: The statute changed—write the findings or get reversed.
In Wolverton, the Sixth DCA reversed two big items:
- shared parental responsibility awarded without written best-interest findings, and
- imputed income to Wife without evidence. Case Law+1
Even though trial happened under the 2022 version of §61.13(3), the final judgment was entered after the 2023 amendment took effect. The 2023 statute requires specific written findings on each best-interest factor. The court held that change was procedural, so it applied to the judgment. Because no findings were made—especially on abuse allegations—the parenting ruling had to be remanded. Case Law+1
On child support, the court said you can’t impute income based on vibes. Husband offered no real evidence about Wife’s job search, earning capacity, or available work. No competent substantial evidence = no imputation. Case Law+1
Practice takeaway:
Post-2023, trial courts must write the best-interest findings in ink, not in their hearts. And if you want imputed income, bring proof—not assumptions.
5. MacKenzie v. MacKenzie: When the Judge Writes Himself Off the Case
Headline lesson: If your disqualification order reads like a roast of counsel, you’ve already lost the disqualification fight.
In MacKenzie, the Second DCA granted a writ of prohibition because a successor judge denied Husband’s motion to disqualify, but did so in a way that proved the bias claim. Case Law+1
The successor judge made written comments questioning counsel’s mental health, fitness to practice, credibility, and candor—despite the record showing counsel was on medical leave and trying to comply. The DCA said those statements established actual bias and justified the fear the judge couldn’t be fair. Case Law
The court also flagged the order’s misstatements about Bar rules and even an erroneous reference to a prior appellate matter. Bottom line: the denial order itself was the best evidence that disqualification was appropriate. Case Law
Practice takeaway:
Judges can rule on bias motions, but they can’t write fanfiction about opposing counsel’s mental health and still expect the DCA to say “sounds neutral.”
The Big Theme: Procedure Is the Real Main Character
These cases all scream the same message from different rooftops:
- Build your record (Puertas).
- Know your appellate timing rules (Miller).
- Don’t shortcut due process (Luna).
- Write the required findings (Wolverton).
- Judicial neutrality isn’t optional (MacKenzie).
Family law is emotional. Appeals are not. The DCAs will absolutely let a trial court’s ruling stand if the record isn’t there, the rules weren’t followed, or the findings weren’t written.
So yes—fight hard for your client.
Just don’t forget to bring the transcript, file the rehearing right, set the motion properly, prove the income, and make sure the judge doesn’t turn your case into a TED Talk about your mental health.
Because in Florida appellate land, paper beats passion every time.