The Child Support That Most People Have to Pay

Florida has standard child support guidelines. The main criteria determining how much you must pay are your net income and the number of children you must support. Judges usually follow the child support guidelines closely. In fact, when a judge orders a child support amount that differs from the amount determined by the guidelines by more than 5%, the judge must file a written statement explaining why he or she decided on this new amount.

Exceptions to the Standard Child Support Guidelines in Florida

The most common reason that a court allows a parent to stop paying child support on a child is that the child becomes a legal adult. This usually happens on the child’s 18th birthday, but it can happen sooner if the child becomes legally emancipated as a teenager. If the parent’s parental rights are terminated, the parent can also stop paying earlier. A common reason for termination of parental rights is that another adult adopts the child. For example, if the mother remarries and the stepfather legally adopts the children, the biological father no longer has to pay child support, but he also no longer has a legal right to a relationship with the children.

Courts can terminate support agreements for reasons other than termination of parental rights. If one parent dies or is sentenced to a prison term, the judge can terminate the support agreement.  In the case of incarceration, judges do not always terminate the agreement; sometimes courts impute income to the incarcerated parent, who must resume paying child support upon his or her release.

Finally, you can be exempt from paying child support if you and your ex-spouse agree in writing that the support is not needed.  This usually happens when the parent who spends more time with the children has a higher income than the non-custodial parent.

Contact Alan Burton About Child Support Cases

To stop child support payments completely, the circumstances have to be quite extreme.  Modifying child support orders, however, is more common. Contact Alan R. Burton in Boca Raton, Florida for help with your child support case.

The best interests of the minor children involved in the proceeding should always be the paramount concern of the trial court judge.  One section which should not be overlooked by the judge is found in section 61.13(2)(c)(2).  That section creates a presumption of detriment to the minor children when the parent seeking time-sharing has been convicted of domestic battery upon the other spouse.

The operative word under this particular section of the statute is “presumption”.  A trial judge must inform the party who has been found guilty of domestic violence that it is their burden to overcome the presumption of detriment to the minor children.  Failing to overcome the burden could lead to the denial of shared parental responsibility or any time-sharing.

The case of Matura v. Griffiths discusses in detail the concept of timesharing, parenting plans, and the effect of domestic violence on timesharing and shared parental responsibility.

In the Matura case, the husband was deported to Jamaica based upon his conviction of domestic violence against his wife.  In spite of the fact that he was deported to Jamaica as a result of domestic battery, the trial judge still afforded him the opportunity to have timesharing in Jamaica with his children.

The appellate court promptly reversed the trial court, due in large part to the fact that the trial judge never advised the husband that his domestic battery convictions created the “presumption of detriment” to the minor children. This in turn would have denied him the right to have timesharing, unless he was able to rebut the presumption of “detriment to the children”.  Unfortunately the trial judge never informed the husband of his obligation to rebut the presumption.

Many people are familiar with the Hague convention, which is actually known as the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  This is an international treaty among various countries who have pledged to assist in the return of minor children to their homes.

Jamaica is not a signatory or a party to the Hague convention, which would make it nearly impossible to have a child returned after having been improperly removed to a country which is not a party to the Hague convention.

A combination of domestic violence, along with threats of abduction, coupled with a non-signatory country to the Hague convention could only spell disaster, as found in the Matura case.

Extreme caution must be exercised, and all reasonable and necessary safeguards should be put in place when you are dealing with timesharing between parents residing in different countries.  This is especially true when one parent has demonstrated his or her capacity and propensity to disregard court orders regarding time-sharing and custody.

Talk to an attorney who has over 37 years of experience dealing with marital and family law issues, including familiarity with the Hague convention.  Alan R. Burton is an attorney practicing law in Boca Raton, Florida and is available to consult with you should you have any questions regarding time-sharing, divorce, or other family law related issues.  He can be reached at 954-295-9222.

The animosity between parents can lead to difficult situations with their minor children.  When a parent’s anger adversely affects the minor children, that particular parent may end up with restricted contact with their minor children.  When one parent suffers from anxiety or depression, their behavior may have adverse effects on their children.  In either one of these scenarios, a therapist might be called in to intervene, and make recommendations to the court as to future prospects for time sharing, if a parents rights have been temporarily restricted.

In Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So 3rd 453 (Florida 2nd DCA 2010), the mother suffered a suspension of her time sharing with her children.  The trial court failed to delineate what was required of the mother in order to reestablish her time sharing.   As a result of the trial court’s failure to delineate, the decision was reversed on appeal.

The Grigsby court then went on to state that the court must give the parent the key to reconnecting with his or her children, and that an order that does not set forth the specific steps a parent must take to reestablish time-sharing is deficient because it prevents the parent from knowing what is expected and prevents any successor judge from monitoring the parent’s progress.   A similar ruling was made in the case of Perez v. Fay, 160 So 3rd 459 (Florida 2nd DCA 2015).

Your children are the most important people in your life.  Whenever your divorce case involves minor children, and high conflict between the parents, you need the services of a calm attorney capable of diffusing the tension between the parents. Alan R. Burton, a Boca Raton divorce attorney with over 40 years of experience has the appropriate demeanor in cases with high conflict.  Call him today and 954-295-9222 for a free consultation.

Income from all sources reduce the “needs” of the spouse who is claiming alimony from the other party.  “Needs versus ability to pay” is the general standard utilized by the courts in determining alimony awards.  The importance of examining all sources of income available to the recipient of alimony cannot be understated.

Interest earned on 401(k) retirement accounts should be considered as income available to the spouse even though the spouse is not able to draw on the income until he or she reaches the age of 65.  Niederman v. Niederman, 6o So3rd 544 (Florida 4th DCA 2011)  stands for that very principle.  This is true regardless of whether the recipient of the alimony award has attained the age at which funds may be withdrawn without penalty.

Income is defined under Florida law, Section 61.046(8), Florida Statutes.  Income includes retirement benefits, pensions, dividends, and interest.

A court abuses its discretion in not considering interest income earned from retirement accounts in determining the income of the spouse who was seeking alimony.

Alimony can be a contentious issue in a divorce case.  It is important to have all relevant information regarding alimony at your disposal.  Experienced and seasoned Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton has the experience to fight for your all of your rights, whether they affect alimony claims, equitable distribution, child support or time sharing. Call Alan R. Burton today at 954-295-9222 for a free consultation.

In the case of Somasca v Somasca, 171 So3rd 780 (Florida 2nd DCA 2015), the former husband owned commercial real property encumbered by a mortgage.  A substantial portion of the mortgage was paid down during the marriage by utilizing marital funds obtained when the wife refinanced the marital residence.  The wife was claiming 50% of the amount of the mortgage reduction as a marital asset and as a portion of her equitable distribution.

The husband responded by claiming that his separate property depreciated substantially in value during the marriage, which essentially “washed out” or canceled any claims that the wife was making in reference to a pay down of his non marital mortgage.

The appellate court was quick to note that the wife’s position was correct and the husband’s position was not supported by law.  It’s irrelevant whether or not the husband’s non marital real property appreciates in value.  The husband still acquires an enhanced amount of equity in his non marital property when his mortgage balance is being reduced.

The clear analysis of this concept is set forth in the Somasca case cited above.

When seeking a divorce, it is important to retain the services of a Boca Raton divorce attorney who has many years of experience in identifying and valuing marital assets, no matter what form they come in.  Alan R. Burton is an attorney with over 40 years of experience who is well qualified to represent you at every step of the way in your divorce case.  Call him today at 954-295-9222.

When you are seeking review of an inaccurate calculation for child support, generally the lack of having a transcript of the of the record from the trial court will be fatal to your review of any errors.  However, child support is a whole different matter, separate and apart from review of alimony or equitable distribution errors.  The reason for this is that child support is not a requirement imposed by one parent on the other, rather it is a dual obligation imposed on the parents by the State of Florida.  See Quinn v. Quinn, 169 So3rd 268 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2015).

The right of child support is a right that belongs to the child, and the parents do not have the right to waive the amount of the child’s support.

When minor children are involved in a proceeding, a parenting plan will have to be either executed by the parties, or determined by the court.  Additionally, a child support guideline worksheet must be filed in the case.

You must exercise caution in making certain that the number of overnights that each parent has, as provided for in their parenting plan, are the same number of overnights utilized in the calculation of child support in the child support guideline worksheet..

If not, when a discrepancy like this occurs, it is impossible for an appellate court to determine whether or not an unintentional mistake was made, or the number of overnights were intentionally contradictory in order to arrive at a certain amount of monthly child support.

Florida law does provide for a deviation in the amount of child support provided for under the guidelines.  A trial court has a right to deviate from the guidelines by more than 5% of the amount stated in the guidelines.  However, a final judgment must specify all the various findings in order to justify a deviation of more than 5%.

There is a point to be made here.  If the intention was to create a deviation from the Florida child support guidelines amount, be certain that the final judgment specifies all the reasons why a deviation is occurring, otherwise your case may be reversed on appeal.

No one likes to face the unnecessary expense involved with an appeal.  It is important to get things right the first time.  Call Alan R Burton, a Boca Raton divorce attorney for valuable advice regarding parenting plans, child support, overnight time-sharing, and any other matters related to family law and divorce.  Mr. Burton professionally represents individuals in divorce cases at the initial trial level, as well as the appellate level,

Mr. Burton can be reached at his office or on his cell phone any time of the day or night, 7 days a week. Call him today at 954-295-9222.

Stock is just one example of what might be considered a marital asset in a divorce case.  Stocks which are traded routinely on an exchange have a value that is easily determined.  What do you do however when you are dealing with stock in a privately held company, or stocks commonly referred to as penny stocks?  How do you go to go about valuing these types of stocks?

Bring your valuation experts to court, and present their full testimony.  For certain, a trial judge should not make a finding of value until all the evidence has been presented to the court regarding valuation.  Additionally, if both parties to the proceeding offer evidence of differing valuations, it is not appropriate for a court to take an average of the two conflicting valuations in order to assign a value to the stock.

This is precisely what the trial court did in the case of Tucker v. Tucker, 171 So3rd 158 (Florida 4th DCA 2015).  On appeal, the trial court was reversed.  The appellate court stated that “a trial court’s property valuation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”  The court referenced, in support of this principle, the case of Garcia v. Garcia, 25 So3rd 687 (Florida 4th DCA 2010).

When a court takes an average of two different valuations, the stock valuation was not not supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Florida law clearly prohibits the valuation of marital assets by splitting the difference between two  different valuations.

If you have a question regarding the valuation of your assets, you are entitled to a full and complete hearing to present all of the evidence that you have associated with the valuation of the particular asset.  The same holds true for the other party.  Anything short of a full evidentiary hearing may very well likely lead to a reversal on appeal.

Further information regarding valuation issues of marital assets can be obtained by calling experienced Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton at 954-295-9222

Florida Statute 61.30(1)(a) specifically states that the child support guideline amount is utilized to establish the amount of child support,  whether in a temporary or permanent proceeding.

When the court is assigned the task of determining the amount of child support that is going to be paid, a trial court is permitted to deviate from the amount of child support as provided for in the guideline amount, based on a myriad of different factors, as noted in Florida Statute 61.30(1)(a)(11).  There are 11 separate factors itemized under this statute which provide for different scenarios for deviating from the child support guidelines.  Take a few moments to read through that section to see if any of the listed factors will provide you with a basis to seek additional child support over and above the amount as set forth under the child support guidelines.

Before a court is in fact authorized however to deviate, the amount of child support pursuant to the guidelines must be first determined.

Child support is a right that belongs to your child. Parents do not have the right to waive the amount of child support that the child or children will receive.

If you want to be sure that you are maximizing the amount of child support for your children, or that you are paying the appropriate amount of child support, you need the advice of an experienced Boca Raton divorce attorney like Alan R. Burton, who has been practicing law for over 40 years. Call him today at 954-295-9222. He can help you.

Partition is a request that is made by one of the parties to sell jointly owned real property.  The court in the case of Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) specifically held that a court has no authority to partition or order the sale of  jointly held real property in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a specific pleading filed in the case requesting partition.

The court does, however, have the right to award a 100% interest in a parcel of real property to one party or the other in a dissolution of marriage case, as part of the equitable distribution ordered by the court, as provided under Florida Statute 61.075.

Property rights in a dissolution of marriage case can be exceptionally complicated and certain cases. Property rights involve the identification of marital assets, valuation of those assets, and an equitable distribution of marital assets.

Often times valuation, as well as identification issues regarding marital assets arise in a divorce case.  You don’t want to be short changed at an important time in your life.  Contact an attorney who has the knowledge and temperament to provide you with guidance throughout your case.  Boca Raton divorce lawyer Alan R. Burton should be contacted at your earliest opportunity by calling him at 954-295-9222.

The law is clear however, that in order to include bonus income in a child support calculation, there must be evidence that the bonus is regular and continuous before it can be included in a party’s income for purposes of calculating child support.

In Rudnick v. Rudnick, 162 So 3rd 116 (Florida 4th DCA 2015), the husband experienced a substantial spike and his income for the year of his divorce.  He testified that he was a political consultant, who experienced an unusually high level of income in the year 2012 due to the presidential election that year.

The husband further testified that the spike in his income would not continue in future years, which was substantiated by looking at his annual earnings during the years prior to the election.

An unusual spike in income, not likely to continue into the future, is simply not sufficient to support a child support obligation. Rather, the court should look at the historical earnings previous to any unusual spike in income for a more realistic approach to calculating child support.

There are many nuances that go into the calculation of child support.  If you are unsure of your rights or what your obligations may be, call Attorney Alan R. Burton, with offices in Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale, Florida at 954-295-9222.

There is no doubt that Florida is a multi-cultural state, drawing residents from around the world.  Oftentimes those residents will come to Florida with prenuptial agreements executed in their home countries.

These agreements usually will contain a choice of law provision which basically spells out that the law of their country will apply to the provisions of the agreement, even though a divorce action is filed in Florida.

When determining whether to apply Florida law or foreign law to a contract, which is what a prenuptial agreement is, a court must first apply Florida’s choice of law or rules.  Generally speaking, Florida courts enforce contractual choice of law provisions unless enforcing the chosen forum’s law would contravene strong Florida public policy.

The party seeking to avoid enforcement of the choice of law provision has the burden of demonstrating that the foreign law contravenes public policy. McNamara v. McNamara, 40 S03d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

The concept of applying foreign law to a Florida divorce proceeding does not mean the issue is restricted solely to international proceedings.  The same rules would apply to any contracts that are executed in any state in the United States.  The use of the term “foreign” applies to any agreement executed outside of the State of Florida, whether it be from another state or another country.

If you are contemplating filing for divorce, and you have a foreign agreement that you either wish to enforce or vacate, you should confer with an experienced divorce and family law attorney. Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton has the experience you need in situations like this.  Call him for a free consultation at 954-295-9222.

There is a basic premise under the law that states that absent an emergency, failure to give notice to the other party is tantamount to a denial of due process of law.   The appellate courts throughout the State of Florida routinely reverse temporary custody orders entered without notice to the other party, or with insufficient notice, or with insufficient opportunity to be heard.  Putting it a different way, there are at least two sides to every story, and both parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their position to a judge, prior to the Court making any adjustments regarding a previously existing time-sharing schedule between the parents.

The former husband, Basem Yunis, ran afoul of these basic principles when dealing with an ex parte motion seeking emergency relief.  You can read about the facts in his case in Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 Southern 3rd 319 (Florida 5th DCA 2015).

To modify custody on a temporary basis, the party seeking relief has the burden of proving two things.  First, you must prove that a substantial change in the circumstances of one or both of the parties has occurred, and secondly, that the best interests of the child will be promoted by any changes in custody or timesharing.

When an ex parte order is entered by the court, which has the effect of changing custody or timesharing, such relief may be granted in only limited circumstances.   Generally, there must be allegations that the child is threatened with physical harm or is about to be improperly removed from the state of Florida.   Any pleading short of those allegations should mandate a full evidentiary hearing, with notice and opportunity to be heard by both sides, rather than the court granting ex parte relief.

Along similar lines, a court does not have the legal authority to change a previously existing time-sharing schedule based upon an alleged violation of shared parental responsibilities under Florida law.  If the court were to do such a thing, any change would be based upon a punishment against a parent rather than the court considering the best interests of the minor child.   A change in time sharing or custody should never be imposed based upon a sanction for the misconduct or bad behavior of either party, but must always be based upon the best interests of the minor child.

Family Law disputes regarding minor children are extremely sensitive proceedings, which require a steady hand and common sense approach to resolving conflicts. Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton has the demeanor to approach high conflict cases with a steady hand, in order to achieve a more expeditious resolution.  Mr. Burton is an attorney who is readily accessible by telephone.  You can call him today directly on his cell phone at 954-295-9222 to discuss any issues regarding any of your family related matters

The Legislature has made adoption assistance, including financial aid, available to prospective adoptive parents who adopt a child with special needs through the state’s foster care system.

The purpose of the adoption subsidy is to encourage individuals to adopt special-needs children by assisting the parents with the extra care a special needs child requires.

A subsidy paid by the state is not to be treated as a credit towards a child support obligation.  However, the subsidy is to be divided between the parents based on the percentage of time sharing that each receives under their parenting plan. Tluzek v. Tluzek, 179 So3d 455 (Florida 5th District Court of Appeal 2015).

The trial court had committed error when the court initially credited the full amount of the adoption subsidy against the child support obligation.  This resulted in a negative child support obligation, and a corresponding payment back to the father from the mother, who was the primary caregiver for the child.  This result was obviously inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding adoption subsidies, and the trial court was promptly reversed.

Although the issue of adoption subsidies doesn’t arise very frequently, you should be able to call upon an attorney who is very familiar with adoption subsidies and other unique situations.  Only an experienced attorney, with several years of trial experience, should be called upon to address these unique situations.  Alan R Burton, an experienced divorce lawyer in Boca Raton, Florida, has over 40 years of experience, and has dealt with this issue as well as other complicated issues over his many years as a divorce and family law attorney.  Alan R Burton makes himself readily available, and will provide you with a free consultation, simply by calling him at (954) 229-1660 or 954-295-9222.

What happens however, when the payor spouse files a petition for downward modification of the child support obligation, and the recipient of the child support files a motion for contempt?  How will these competing pleadings be handled by the trial court?

A petition for modification of child support should either be heard before or simultaneously with a motion for contempt, in order for the trial court to determine if in fact there is a factual basis to reduce the child support obligation.

If in fact a downward petition for modification of child support is granted, an arrears figure must be calculated from the date the petition for a downward modification was filed, through the date of the hearing.  If there were any delinquencies existing in the payment of child support prior to the date a petition for modification was filed, that amount must be based on the initial court order for support.

More information can be obtained by reading the case of Rosenblum v. Rosenblum, 178 So3d 49 (Florida 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2015), or by calling Palm Beach County divorce attorney Alan R. Burton at 954-295-9222.

The importance of clearly setting forth the nature of a specific hearing, in either a court order setting a matter for a hearing or in a notice of hearing cannot be understated.  If a trial court conducts a proceeding that expands beyond what was noticed for that particular hearing, over a litigant’s objection, a denial of due process will occur.

In Shah v. Shah, the trial court conducted a final hearing for dissolution of marriage, in spite of the fact that the case was noticed for a status conference, and not a final hearing.  The court’s notice to the litigants clearly stated that either a final hearing or a status conference would be conducted, however, if the pro se wife filed an answer than the court would only conduct a status conference.  In spite of the fact that the pro se wife did file an answer, the court went ahead anyways and granted a dissolution of marriage.  The appellate court stated that under the circumstances of the facts presented in this case, a denial of due process had occurred.  A fundamental prerequisite to due process requires proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

If you feel that your rights have been violated, contact Alan R. Burton, an experienced Boca Raton divorce attorney, at 954-295-9222 who can assist you in defending your due process rights.

In a recent case, Rutan v. Rutan, 177 So3rd 35 (Florida 2nd DCA 2015), the trial court noted the well-known ability of “self-employed spouses, in contrast to salaried employees, to control and regulate their income.”

Reasonable inferences made by a trial court from the evidence submitted regarding a party’s income are not enough. Inferences, no matter how reasonable, do not constitute a satisfactory substitute for the trial court making specific findings concerning the actual amount of income that would justify an alimony award.

You cannot afford to leave any stones unturned when you are either seeking alimony or defending a claim against paying alimony.  Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, you need an experienced and competent trial attorney to protect your interests in court.  Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R Burton has the requisite experience and trial demeanor to represent you in a professional manner. Alan R Burton can be reached by calling him at his office at (954) 229-1660 or on his cell phone at 954-295-9222.

The standard for changing the child’s name is whether the change is in the child’s best interests or is necessary for the welfare of the child. Azzara v. Waller, 495 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986) stands for the proposition that a minor’s surname should only be changed when the evidence affirmatively shows that such change is necessary as necessitated by the welfare of the child.  In Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the court stated that a child’s surname should remain unchanged absent evidence that the change is necessary for the welfare of the child.

When a trial court changes the surname of a minor child without adequate evidence, it constitutes an abuse of discretion.  A petitioning parent cannot meet the heavy burden in these situations by making assertions which are conclusory, speculative, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, and irrelevant to the best interests of or for the welfare of the child.

Frequently a parent will attempt to change the surname of a minor child in order to distance the child from the other parent or for that parent’s particular own convenience.  This is what occurred in the case of Airsman v. Airsman, 179 So3d 342 ( 2nd DCA 2015).  When an attempt to change the name of a child is based on the slightest evidence, the relief will be denied, just as it was in the Airsman case.

Contact Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton for further information on changing the name of a minor child, or any other issues related to divorce, paternity and family law.  Mr. Burton is readily accessible by calling him at 954-295-9222.

There is a two-part test that the Court applies when a party is requesting that the other party submit to either a psychological evaluation or a substance abuse evaluation.  First, the issue must be “in controversy”, and second, “good cause” must be shown.

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.360(a) provides for compulsory psychological evaluations or drug testing only when the party submitting the request has “good cause” for the examination.  The party requesting the examination has the burden of proof in showing that both the “in controversy” and “good cause” prongs have been satisfied before the court can order testing.

When you are seeking to impose these types of tests or evaluations upon the other party, general, conclusory allegations in your pleadings do not put the other party’s mental health in controversy nor do they demonstrate good cause.  Specificity in the pleadings which genuinely demonstrate that the condition is at issue and should be considered must be pled.

These types of tests and evaluations necessarily involve intrusion into the other party’s privacy rights. Requests for these types of examinations occur all too frequently in custody and time-sharing disputes. Often times there is no substance behind the request to support them.  An advocate who is well familiar with the law can appropriately defend against the imposition of these types of evaluations, or can aggressively argue for the imposition of these evaluations, if the facts warrant them.  Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton, who has over 40 years of experience, is well qualified to deal with these issues.  He can be reached at 954-295-9222. Call him today for a free consultation. 

A party, in order to modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, must allege and prove an unanticipated substantial, material change in circumstances since the entry of the final judgment.  See the case of Chapman v. Prevatt, 845 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) for a further discussion of this topic.

In Blevins v. Blevins, 172 So. 3rd 568 (Florida 5th DCA 2015), the former husband successfully appealed his former wife’s supplemental petition seeking to modify their final judgment of dissolution of marriage.  The modification order in this case was based primarily upon the court’s concern regarding the distance of the child’s school, which was a one-hour drive from the former wife’s residence.

The residence of both the mother and father were known to the court at the time of the final judgment, when the court designated the father’s residence as the child’s legal address and address to be used for school designation purposes.  Any concerns related to this particular issue cannot form the basis for the modification order.

There are also many cases that stand for the proposition that “parents’ inability to communicate does not satisfy the substantial change requirement for modification.”   A parent needs to prove more than merely an acrimonious relationship and a lack of effective communication in order to show a substantial change in circumstances.

Modification proceedings can be straightforward or complicated, depending on the facts involved. Call Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton at 954-295-9222 to assist you in reviewing the facts of your case that you want to rely on in seeking a modification of your divorce decree.

The right to file an appeal is not without limitations. Appeals will be dismissed in dissolution of marriage cases where the appealing party has been held in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered support, or if the appealing party does not comply with the trial court’s orders within a set period of time.

Where an appealing party has disobeyed an order from the trial court, the appellate court may, in its discretion, either entertain or dismiss an appeal.  Where dismissal is ordered, it is mandatory however, that the disobedient appealing party be given a period of grace, prior to the effective date of the dismissal, in which to comply with the disobeyed order.

In Whissell v. Whissell, (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the husband filed an appeal, asking the appellate court to review the final judgment entered in his case.  The husband had previously been found in contempt of court multiple times during the course of his trial proceedings.  The appellate court refused to address the complaints asserted by the husband, but rather remanded his case back to the trial court, in order for the trial court to give him time to comply with the court orders issued in his case.  Only after such time would the court entertain his appeal.

Alan R. Burton is an experienced attorney, practicing in Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He has argued many appeals before the 4th District Court of Appeal, as well appearing before the Florida Supreme Court.  If you have questions about your divorce or are considering an appeal of your case, you should call Alan R. Burton today at (954) 229-1660 or 954-295-9222 and schedule a conference to discuss your case.