⚖️ Stockdale v. Stockdale: No “Grandfathering” Permanent Alimony
In Stockdale v. Stockdale, the First DCA made it clear: if your final judgment wasn’t rendered before the new alimony statute took effect, don’t expect permanent alimony to survive.
Here, the magistrate had completed the final hearing before the statutory amendments eliminating permanent alimony became effective. But the trial court didn’t enter the final judgment until after the effective date. The appellate court found that the case was still “pending” under the statute and that no vested right to permanent alimony had attached just because the hearing was over. Bottom line? Permanent alimony is dead unless locked in by a final judgment before the statutory cutoff.
👨‍👧 Bechert v. Bechert: Corporal Discipline ≠Domestic Violence
Over in the Fourth DCA, Bechert v. Bechert tackled the blurry line between discipline and domestic violence. A DV injunction had been entered against a father who forcefully took his daughter’s cellphone after she was caught stealing, lying, and possessing marijuana and a vape pen. There was no history of abuse, no threats, and no excessive force beyond the physical retrieval of the phone.
The court reversed the injunction, citing Florida law: reasonable and non-excessive corporal punishment by a parent is not domestic violence. This case is a must-read for anyone dealing with DV allegations in a high-conflict parenting case—especially when the facts are murky and discipline is involved.
đź’¸ Tucker v. Lancaster: QDRO “Corrections” Can’t Rewrite the Deal
In Tucker v. Lancaster, the Fifth DCA sent a strong message: don’t try to fix a bad QDRO deal after the clock runs out. The trial court had granted the former wife’s motion to “correct” the QDRO to give her a cut of her ex’s DROP benefits, claiming it was just a clerical fix.
The appellate court disagreed, ruling that the change substantively altered the parties’ financial rights, making it ineligible for correction under Rule 12.540(a). And because the motion was filed more than a year after the judgment, Rule 12.540(b) didn’t apply either. If you miss the window, you miss the shot.
🧬 Bauer v. Carlson: Biology Doesn’t Trump Legal Paternity
Finally, Bauer v. Carlson offers a cautionary tale for biological fathers seeking to intervene in established paternity actions. The court held that an alleged biological father had no standing to challenge paternity where the legal father had signed a voluntary acknowledgment—and no fraud, duress, or mistake of fact was alleged.
Worse yet for the would-be father: only a legal father has the right to file a petition to disestablish paternity under Florida law. That means biology alone isn’t enough to get your foot in the courtroom door unless the statutory prerequisites are met. DNA might be persuasive—but it’s not always legally powerful.
đź’ˇ Practice Tips:
- Finalize alimony orders ASAP—or risk the court applying the new statute.
- Don’t confuse parenting with violence—especially in DV injunction hearings.
- QDRO corrections must be clerical, not substantive—or filed within strict deadlines.
- Biological fathers must play by Chapter 742 rules—or risk getting booted before they even begin.
Want to stay ahead of the curve in Florida family law? Follow me for more updates and insights on real-time rulings and their impact on your cases.
And remember, Fell out of Love? Call Fell Law Group! We’ll help pick you back up.