At Fell Law Group, we’re dedicated to staying on top of the latest legal developments to better serve our clients navigating family law matters in Florida. Several recent appellate decisions shed light on critical issues, from child custody to equitable distribution and guardianships. Here’s what you need to know:
Campana v. Trabold
In this case, a father sought to establish paternity and filed a motion for a pickup order after the mother moved unilaterally with the children to Ohio. The court made a significant error by entering a no-contact order that effectively granted the father exclusive use of the parties’ Florida home without proper pleading or trial by consent.
Takeaway: This case emphasizes the importance of due process. Courts cannot grant relief—such as exclusive possession of a home—unless it has been properly requested and litigated. If you’re involved in a custody or relocation dispute, ensure your rights are fully protected in all procedural matters.
Cancel v. Cancel
This case dealt with equitable distribution in a divorce. The trial court mistakenly determined it could not distribute the marital portion of a husband’s future pension because he was not yet collecting it and because no present value had been provided. However, the appellate court found there was enough information on record to calculate the marital portion and ordered deferred distribution.
Takeaway: Pensions and retirement accounts often form a significant part of marital assets. Even if these benefits won’t be collected for years, they can still be equitably divided. If you’re facing a divorce, be sure all potential assets, including future benefits, are properly valued and accounted for.
Bronner v. Longden
A father’s petition to determine parental responsibility was dismissed by the trial court, which found that the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity was fraudulently signed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, stating that an evidentiary hearing was required before making such a determination.
Takeaway: This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in paternity cases. If you’re challenging or defending a paternity acknowledgment, the court must follow strict protocols before invalidating such agreements.
Oria v. Velastegui
This case focused on modifications to a paternity agreement. The father sought changes to the parenting plan regarding holiday timesharing, travel, passport possession, and tax credit entitlements. The appellate court found that while some modifications could be considered due to the mother’s default, others required further hearings to determine the best interests of the child.
Takeaway: Courts take the best interests of the child seriously when modifying timesharing and parental responsibility agreements. Even in default situations, the court must assess the substantive merits of requested changes.
In re Guardianship of Gore
This case involved the appointment of a guardian advocate for an incapacitated adult. The trial court appointed the father as guardian despite substantial evidence that he was not suited to meet the child’s needs. The appellate court reversed the decision, highlighting the child’s testimony and evidence of the maternal grandmother’s better suitability.
Takeaway: Guardianship cases require thorough evaluation of the ward’s best interests. Courts must weigh evidence of a guardian’s ability to meet the ward’s needs, including communication and welfare concerns.
Why These Cases Matter
Each of these decisions highlights the need for skilled legal representation to ensure your rights and interests are protected. Whether it’s ensuring procedural fairness, properly valuing assets, or safeguarding the best interests of children, having an experienced attorney by your side is critical.
Fell out of love? Call Fell Law Group! We’ll help pick you back up.
If you’re facing a family law issue, contact us today. Our team is here to guide you through every step of the process, providing the expertise and advocacy you deserve.