In Dunn, the husband took the children and relocated from Florida to live with his parents in Tennessee. This ocurred during the irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage, but before divorce was filed. His wife quickly filed a divorce and requested an emergency pickup order for return of the children, which the trial court granted.

The husband appealed, arguing that F.S. 61.13001, Florida’s relocation statute, doesn’t prohibit relocation before divorce is filed. The Third DCA agreed, noting the law applies only after a time-sharing order has been ordered, or a pending action has been filed.

However, the court held a that the trial court had discretion to order a parenting plan that included return of the children if determined to be in the best interests of the children under F.S. 61.13(2)(a).

The Fourth DCA stayed the pickup order and remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing on whether returning the children serves their best interests.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

Florida law permits trial courts to temporarily modify (and suspend) child custody and time-sharing without prior notice in “emergencies.” Caselaw defines “emergencies” as threats of physical harm or imminent removal from the state. In Capps (December 2025), the Fourth DCA recognized that “substantial emotional abuse or trauma” may also qualify as an emergency.

The case arose from a contentious marriage dissolution proceeding. Initially, both parents were granted shared parental responsibility and timesharing. However, the situation escalated when the mother filed an emergency motion alleging harm by the father, including allegations of child drug exposure and child sexual abuse.

Shortly thereafter, the father filed a sworn emergency motion claiming the mother fabricated allegations and subjected the children to repeated, unnecessary invasive examinations, including drug testing and pelvic examinations, and that she made repetitive abuse reports that resulted in police and DCF involvement. The GAL corroborated the children were exposed to unnecessary medical and forensic evaluations and investigations. The trial court found that the mother’s actions were causing severe emotional trauma to the children. The trial court entered a temporary emergency order that restricted the mother’s contact with the children to supervised time-sharing.

The Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s emergency order pending a full evidentiary hearing. The Fourth DCA emphasized that its decision does not predetermine the outcome of the pending evidentiary hearing but validates the trial court’s authority to act promptly in emergencies, which may include situations in which children are exposed to emotional or psychological harm.

The case is notable because it explicitly recognizes mental and psychological harm as a basis for the domestic relations court to enter temporary, emergency orders on the topic of child time-sharing.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

This case involved a dispute between husband and wife over the sale proceeds from the marital home that the parties retained after divorce. The parties purchased a home during their marriage. They subsequently divorced and deferred the sale of the jointly-deeded marital home until an unspecified future date. Their divorce final judgment was entered in 2007 and ratified a marital settlement agreement drafted by the parties. The marital settlement agreement required the former wife to make the ongoing mortgage payments. The MSA also provided that any future sale proceeds from a deferred sale would be split 60/40 in her favor.

For 17 years, the former wife paid all property-related expenses, including taxes, insurance, and maintenance. She occasionally rented the home and did not share the rents she received with the former husband. The husband did not contribute to the carrying costs of the home.

When they agreed to sell in 2021, the former husband claimed his 40% share of the proceeds. The former wife refused, seeking reimbursement for half of the property-related expenses she had been covering after their divorce final judgment was entered.

The issue before the court was whether a co-owner who pays all property expenses after divorce has a right to reimbursement when the property is sold.

The First DCA began by reviewing general property law. Under F.S. §689.15, property held as “tenancy by the entirety” converts to a “tenancy in common” after entry of a divorce final judgment. Co-tenants generally share responsibility for property expenses. In this particular case, the MSA relieved the former husband of mortgage payments but was silent on other costs. Therefore, the court found the former husband remains liable for his share of non-mortgage expenses.

The First DCA also noted that the default rule providing for equal sharing of costs also applies to income, and that half the rental income the former wife received must be offset against the former husband’s half of the non-mortgage expenses.

This case illustrates that clarity matters when drafting marital settlement agreements. Jointly owned property can create long-term financial entanglements after divorce. Marital settlement agreements should be drafted with precision to avoid costly disputes years later.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

When dividing assets in a Florida divorce, one common question is whether a spouse that uses nonmarital funds to pay marital expenses converts the asset from non-marital to marital. The recent case of Rose v. Rose (November 2025) provides important guidance.

In Rose, the husband owned a construction company that the court classified as nonmarital property. During the marriage, he used the company’s accounts to pay personal and marital expenses. The trial court ruled that this use converted part of the business into a marital asset and awarded his wife half the business value.

The Second DCA reversed the trial court, holding that the use of nonmarital funds for marital expenses does not automatically convert the asset into marital property. Only when nonmarital funds are mixed with marital funds (e.g., deposited into a joint account) or there is clear intent to gift does the classification change.

Florida law is clear: Payment of marital expenses with nonmarital funds does not change ownership classification unless commingling or gifting occurs. It is important to keep marital and non-marital accounts separate to avoid commingling.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

In Wilson, the wife owned a home before marriage, jointly with her father. During the marriage, marital funds were used for mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. The trial court calculated a $72,000 marital interest in the property as a result of these expenses, without evidence that they increased the home’s value.

The Second DCA reversed the trial court. The Second DCA found that F.S. 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b) governs the issue of active appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the expenditure of marital funds. According to that statute, only value-enhancing contributions are considered when determining valuation for distribution purposes. Marital contributions that merely maintain the property, such as taxes and insurance, do not add to property value and do not create marital equity. The Second DCA directed the trial court to reconsider whether the mortgage paydown increased the equity in the home, and if so, by how much. The Second DCA further held that the amount subject to distribution to husband and wife should only be half of the enhanced value due to the wife’s shared ownership of the non-marital home with her father.

In some ways, this case seems to be much ado about nothing. A spouse who has made non-value enhancing contributions to non-marital property has recourse under a different statute. In Cole v. Robert (1993), the Fourth DCA held that where one spouse has paid significant expenses on the property of another spouse, even if they do not enhance the value of the property, the trial court may consider those payments in determining whether there is a justification for an unequal distribution of marital assets under F.S. 61.075(1)(g). Note that the marital estate appears to be limited to recovering the non-value enhancing marital contributions that were actually expended, without any interest, making the non-consenting spouse in the marital estate an unwilling, unpaid creditor. Not a perfect answer, but better than nothing.

What is puzzling about this case is that none of the above legal authority provides for distribution of passive appreciation that accrued during the time that marital funds were used to pay the non-marital mortgage. Neither the husband’s attorney nor the court addressed passive appreciation owed to the marital estate under the coverture formula set forth in F.S. 61.075(6)(a)(1)(c). Nonetheless, this case is helpful in distinguishing between value enhancing, active appreciation distributable to the marital estate under F.S. 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b) and non-value enhancing contributions that may be distributable under F.S. 61.075(1)(g).

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, sets out the timelines by which certain hearings are required to be held. One of the most important hearings is the case plan acceptance hearing in which the court determines the details of the parent’s case plan, such as services, specific providers, and the parent’s part of financial responsibility, if any.

Under Chapter 39, it can take 60 days or more to get to a case plan acceptance hearing. That means parents are often left with 10 months or less to complete their case plan services. Because the parent is on a deadline to complete tasks, it is crucial that a parent receive an actionable case plan as soon as possible. A demand for early filing of the dependency petition can expedite the initial hearings in a dependency case and help parents get to a case plan acceptance hearing and a court-approved case plan faster.

A demand for early filing is authorized by F.S. 39.501(4) and F.S. 39.506(1). In Orlando, dependency arraignments are routinely set not more than 14 days from shelter with an early filing demand. Without a demand, the arraignment wouldn’t be scheduled until up to 28 days after shelter (or longer if the parent does not object to the court scheduling the hearing outside statutory time frames).

Click here for the form I use to Demand Early Filing of a Dependency Petition.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

But here’s a twist: in Florida, there’s no such thing as a “legal separation.” That’s right—Florida law doesn’t offer (or require) a formal process for legal separation like some other states. The most similar solution that Florida offers is petitioning for “support unconnected with dissolution,” which allows a spouse to request things like child support or alimony without actually filing for divorce. It’s a way to get legal and financial protections while still remaining legally married.

So why might a couple choose separation over divorce? Some want time to heal or work things out without fully ending the marriage. Others may need to stay married for religious reasons or to keep certain benefits, like health insurance. Whatever the reason, it’s important to know your legal options. In Florida, that means thinking outside the traditional separation box.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

So, what could tip the scales away from an even split? Florida courts consider a range of factors: the length of the marriage, each spouse’s financial situation, contributions to the household (both financial and non-financial), and even whether one spouse intentionally wasted or hid assets. In short, the goal is fairness, not necessarily equality. That means one spouse might end up with more or less, especially if special needs or unique circumstances are at play.

The good news is that spouses don’t have to leave these decisions to a judge. Many litigants reach a mutual agreement through mediation based on their individual sense of fairness. The court is almost always willing to ratify a private agreement on distribution of marital property. This can save time and avoid the stress and cost of contested hearings and trial.

The best starting point for a negotiated compromise is understanding how the law would apply the facts in your case and how a judge would likely decide issues. A skilled attorney who is knowledgeable in divorce law, procedure, and local practice can inform you and let you know your options – and help you get to an agreeable settlement more quickly. Every divorce is different, but understanding Florida’s rules can help you prepare, protect your rights, and move forward with confidence.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

But not all divorces are quick and easy. If spouses don’t have an agreement on key issues, the divorce is considered contested, which significantly slows down the process. Contested divorces often involve court hearings, mediation, and extensive negotiation, sometimes stretching the timeline to several months or even over a year. Child custody disputes or complex financial assets can add additional layers of time and complexity. Plus, backlogs in the court system can lengthen the timeline to get to the final judgment. It’s not unusual for litigants to wait for months for hearing times in Orlando.

Whether your divorce takes a few weeks or more than a year, it’s important to stay informed and organized. Working with an attorney or mediator can help streamline the process, and being proactive about paperwork and communication with your spouse can avoid unnecessary delays. Every divorce is different, but understanding the typical timeline in Florida can help you navigate this life transition with a little more clarity and a lot more confidence.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue and held that, when evaluating attorney’s fees, the determination of financial need must be made after considering the effects of equitable distribution and any alimony awards. In Ramakrishnan (April 25, 2025), the appellate court reversed a trial court order requiring the husband to pay $20,000 toward the wife’s attorney’s fees. Under Florida law, fee awards depend on one spouse’s need and the other’s ability to pay. However, the trial court’s own findings showed that the parties received an equal distribution of marital assets and had comparable incomes once the awarded alimony was factored into their net income. Because both parties ultimately had nearly equal financial resources, the appellate court determined that the attorney’s fee award was not justified.

If you have questions about how courts evaluate financial need in divorce cases, an experienced alimony attorney in Orlando can help you understand how issues such as spousal support, equitable distribution, and attorney’s fees may affect your case. For guidance with alimony, divorce, child support, and other family law matters, contact DeVoe Law Firm today.