Court Filings

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment in a divorce case. The court affirmed most issues raised by Husband but reversed two rulings affecting Wife: the denial of retroactive child support and the omission of family photographs and videos from equitable distribution. The court found the record contained uncontroverted evidence of the child’s needs and Husband’s ability to pay, and held that family photographs and videos created or acquired during the marriage are marital assets. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the retroactive support amount and to include and distribute the photographic materials.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a dissolution of marriage judgment after both parties appealed. The appellate court found multiple deficiencies in the trial court’s final judgment — missing asset and liability designations, insufficient factual findings (including valuation of the husband’s law practice, temporary support modification, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees) — but concluded many issues were preserved by a timely motion for rehearing. The court also held the trial court erred in treating a premarital Wells Fargo brokerage account as marital property because the record shows marital funds used to pay a secured margin loan were traceable and did not commingle the account except possibly for a de minimis amount. The matter was remanded for specific findings and correction of errors.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan relocation case because the trial court granted permanent relocation relief after a hearing that had been noticed only for temporary relief. The appellant had requested both temporary and permanent relief, but the notice for the July 17, 2024 hearing specified only temporary relief. The appellate court held that granting permanent relief without proper notice violated due process. The court affirmed the temporary relief, reversed the permanent-relief portion, and remanded for a proper final hearing on permanent relocation.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan modification case. Ellen-Rose Fitzgerald sought temporary and permanent relief to relocate with her children; the hearing was noticed only for temporary relief. The trial court nonetheless entered an order granting permanent relief. The appellate court held that granting relief beyond the noticed subject violated due process, affirmed the portion granting temporary relief, reversed the portion granting permanent relief, and remanded for a properly noticed final hearing on permanency.