Ocala Divorce Lawyer Blog

If you are divorcing in Florida in this current economic climate, like many, your house may be "upside down" on the equity to loan ratio or have what we are calling, "negative equity." That has happened one of two ways: either you bought between '05 and '07 when the housing market was at its highest or you took equity out of the home through a "home equity line of credit," and now the house is worth substantially less.

But what happens to that house and the negative equity in divorce? Generally, if your spouse has decided to keep the marital home, it could cause problems for you. Unless your spouse is able to re-finance that home, your name remains on the loan/mortgage for that home- even if you sign a Quit Claim deed. The Quit Claim deed only relinquishes legal title to the home, it does not relieve you from the financial obligation. Just because the home is now hers/his, does not release you from your original liability of the original mortgage you both took out as a married couple. Unless your spouse can qualify for a new mortgage, by way of a refinance, on his/her own, you will still be liable to the lender for the original mortgage on a home you do not own, if your spouse cannot or will not pay the obligation. In other words your good credit may be at the mercy of your ex. The next problem is that He/she may not qualify, so you have all the legal obligation to the bank without the legal position of owning the property.

Lastly, there may even be some equity in the house, but in order for you to get your portion of the equity, your spouse might not be able to refinance because the Bank's just aren't lending much anymore, because of the credit crunch. We have had some client's that just pay the other spouse their share of the equity of the house over a long period of time.

It used to be that divorcing couples would fight over which one of them keeps the marital home. Now couples are fighting over which one of them is going to take the marital home. Many of my clients are just letting the house go back to the bank. There is absolutely no benefit for them financially in keeping a home that is worth much, much less than is owed. However, from the lender's standpoint, nothing has changed because both partners are responsible for the mortgage. The only other alternative is a short sale to a third party. Should that occur the deficiency belongs to both of you.

If you are thinking about divorce in North Central Florida, please call us to talk your case. Visit our website or call the office to schedule your low-cost consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.

I frequently have clients who come in and tell me they need an Emergency Motion filed for __________(fill in the blank). The emergency could be that their Husband/Wife is taking the furniture, going to turn off the electricity, or cancel the Husband's/Wife's car insurance. All very important issues, but does it rise to the level of filing an Emergency Ex-Parte Injunction? When is an emergency really and emergency in the eyes of the court?

In the recently released case of Hunter v. Hunter, 2D09-4878, 2010 WL 2077158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App), the District Court, says that a trial court should only order relief in an Ex-parte proceeding where there exists an immediate threat of irreparable injury that forecloses the opportunity to give reasonable notice. See City of Boca Raton v. Boca Raton Airport Auth., 768 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Thus a motion seeking ex-parte relief "must demonstrate (1) how and why the giving of notice would accelerate or precipitate the injury or (2) that the time required to notice a hearing would actually permit the threatened irreparable injury to occur." Id. at 1193 (quoting Smith v. Knight, 679 So. 2d 359, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). In the case that was before the DCA, it found that the Wife's motion failed to demonstrate either an immediate threat of irreparable injury or a reason notice could not be given.

The DCA further opined that to the extent that the order grants injunctive relief in the Hunter case, they observed that almost none of the required procedures were followed. According to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.610(a), injunctive relief in family law cases not related to the need for protection against domestic violence, repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence is governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Rule 1.610(a)(1), which permits the entry of a temporary injunction without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if:

(A) it appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts that have been made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.

In the Hunter case, the Wife's motion was neither verified nor supported by affidavits. Thus the motion was deficient under rule 1.610(a)(1)(A). Also, the motion did not contain the attorney's certification required under rule 1.601(a)(1)(B). Furthermore, the order itself is defective because it contains no explanation of the reasons for its entry other than "[t]he Emergency Motion is well taken." Thus the order violates rule 1.610(c), which requires that an injunction specify the reasons for entry. See also Hathcock v. Hathcock, 533 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that an order enjoining the husband from disposing of marital property and awarding the wife temporary exclusive use and possession of the marital home failed to comply with rule 1.610 because it contained no findings concerning why the injury would be irreparable or why the order was granted without notice). Finally, it does not appear that the trial court required the Wife to post a bond as required by rule 1.610(b).

The Court held that the Wife's argument about the Notice Requirement of Rule 1.610(a) concerning the entry of temporary injunctions without notice was woefully insufficient. To send a copy of a motion to opposing counsel without a notice of hearing and to present the motion to the court for the entry of an order granting the motion an hour or so later is unquestionably inadequate notice -- if it may even be deemed notice at all. See City of Ormond Beach v. City of Daytona Beach, 794 So. 2d 660, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("[N]otice encompasses a reasonable opportunity to prepare and offer evidence."); Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Benitez, 748 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ("Notice for temporary injunction purposes means a meaningful opportunity to prepare in order to present evidence and secure a record of the proceedings.").

If you are thinking about divorce, please call us to talk your case. Visit our website or call the office to schedule your low-cost consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.

Divorce in Florida, especially alimony and child support have been changed when House Bill 907 was signed into law yesterday. This bill was merely waiting for the signature of the Governor, as it had passed the House and the Senate.

Florida's alimony laws have been under consideration for change for some time. The statute which previously guided our Judges on issues of alimony was ambiguous at best, because it lacked clear definitions of "duration" for the award of alimony or types to be considered. It was basically a case-by-case analysis with the aid of case law. Lawyers knew what to do with very short term marriages and long-term marriages but everything else was a "best guess." The new law gives the Court more guidance as far as length of marriage and other factors to consider. The following have been codified by this bill:

1. Adds "durational" alimony or alimony for a set period of "short" or "moderate" period of time.

2. Adds specific guidelines for length of marriage, and defines various types of alimony. Allows for award of more than one type of alimony; and revises factors to be considered in whether to award alimony or maintenance

3. Adds tax consequences and child care responsibilities as factors the court should consider when awarding alimony.

4. Recognizes "bridge-the-gap" short-term alimony so that those in the 5th District Court of Appeal (which includes Ocala, Inverness, Bushnell) will finally have access to this type of support.

A big change on the child support side of the bill was that it added back the 25% of daycare that was taken away. So now instead of getting a 75% credit for paying daycare, the parent that is paying it gets 100% credit, Also, another HUGE change was that "substantial Parenting Time" was reduced from 40% time-sharing (or 147 overnights) down to 20% time sharing (73 overnights). Hopefully, this will mean less fighting over that "mid-week overnight."

If you are thinking about divorce, please call us to talk your case. Visit our website or call the office to schedule your low-cost consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.