In Lamolinara v. Lamolinara, a former wife appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from a 2005 divorce judgment, alleging that the former husband had fraudulently failed to disclose over $150,000 in earned income including a large bonus. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the appeal lacked merit but was not frivolous. On the issue of appellate attorney's fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, the court remanded the former wife's motion to the trial court for determination based on the parties' relative financial resources and the factors from Rosen v. Rosen, while rejecting the former husband's request for fees as unsupported by law. The opinion follows the Second District's approach in Rados v. Rados for handling such fee motions in domestic relations appeals.
The case involved a dispute over attorney’s fees in a workers’ compensation claim filed against the Miami-Dade Police Department. The appellate court reversed the decision below and remanded the matter to the Judge of Compensation Claims. On remand, that judge must decide, using only the existing record and without taking new evidence or argument, whether the employer had good cause for the lack of specificity in its initial response to the fee motion or for the untimeliness of its amended response. A ruling on fees must then follow from that good-cause determination. The court relied on the applicable administrative rule and prior precedent requiring such a limited-scope remand.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the claimant sought temporary total disability benefits for a period in 2010 along with authorization for a second series of cervical epidural steroid injections and related penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, based on psychiatric difficulties arising from a compensable physical injury. The court affirmed the denial of the requested medical benefits without further comment but reversed the denial of the temporary total disability benefits. The court held that the claimant had submitted medical evidence establishing total disability throughout the relevant period, shifting the burden to the employer/carrier to prove a change in work status, which was not met by any admissible medical evidence. The judge of compensation claims had improperly based the denial on an analysis of the claimant’s credibility that lacked support from any record medical evidence of a changed work status.
This case involved a foreclosure action filed by HSBC Bank against the Reeds after their default on a promissory note and mortgage. The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in June 2010, but later ordered post-judgment mediation and entered an order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement that modified the note and mortgage terms. The Reeds moved to enforce the settlement, while HSBC argued it was conditional. On appeal, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the post-judgment mediation order or enforce the settlement because it had not vacated the final judgment, and therefore quashed the enforcement order.
This case involved a dispute over the distribution of real property from a father's intestate estate to his son and daughter. The son had previously executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in the townhouse to his father and former stepmother. The trial court ruled that the son had no interest in the property because the deed conveyed away all rights, including any future inheritance rights. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that a quitclaim deed conveys only the interest held at the time of conveyance and does not transfer an expectancy interest in future inheritance, and that the after-acquired title doctrine did not apply. The court directed that the estate's one-half interest in the property be distributed equally between the son and daughter.
In this personal injury case from a rear-end car accident, the defendant conceded fault but raised a seatbelt defense, arguing the plaintiff's admitted failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to her claimed cervical disc injury, and the jury apportioned 35% comparative negligence to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for directed verdict on the apportionment issue. The appellate court reversed that ruling, concluding the defendant presented no competent expert medical evidence establishing that the seatbelt nonuse substantially caused or contributed to the injury, as required under Florida precedent such as Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis and Houghton v. Bond. The court affirmed the remaining issues without comment and remanded for entry of judgment in the plaintiffs' favor on liability.