Schedule A Consultation

Teris Deitsch

Navigating a High-Conflict Divorce While Maintaining Your Own Integrity: 7 Pitfalls to Avoid When Dealing with A Contentious Spouse

by

Dealing with a contentious and “dirty game-playing” spouse during a divorce can be challenging. Here are seven things to avoid doing to help navigate this difficult situation more effectively:

  1. Engaging in Toxic Communication: Avoid responding to or escalating hostile and inflammatory communication from your spouse. Instead, focus on maintaining a calm and respectful tone in all your interactions, whether in person, through emails, texts, or other forms of communication.
  2. Using Children as Pawns: It’s crucial to shield your children from the conflict as much as possible. Avoid involving them in adult matters, using them to convey messages, or speaking negatively about your spouse in their presence.
  3. Social Media Warfare: Refrain from posting negative or sensitive content about your spouse on social media platforms. Anything you share can be used against you in court, and it can escalate the conflict further.
  4. Withholding Financial Information: Be transparent about your financial situation. Hiding assets or failing to provide accurate financial disclosures can lead to legal consequences and negatively impact the divorce proceedings.
  5. Disregarding Court Orders: Follow court orders and agreements meticulously, even if your spouse does not. Disregarding court orders can reflect poorly on you and complicate the divorce process.
  6. Reacting Emotionally: It’s natural to experience a range of emotions during a divorce, especially when dealing with a difficult spouse. However, avoid making impulsive decisions based on emotions. Consult with your attorney before taking any significant actions.
  7. Neglecting Self-Care: Divorce can be emotionally draining. Prioritize self-care by seeking support from friends, family, or professionals like therapists or counselors. Taking care of your emotional and mental well-being will help you navigate the challenges more effectively.

It is essential to consult with a qualified attorney who specializes in family law to guide you through the divorce process and provide tailored advice based on your unique situation. Going through a high-conflict divorce can be an incredibly challenging and emotionally charged experience. Artemis Family Law Group understands the complexities and sensitivities involved in such cases. Our experienced team of family law attorneys is dedicated to providing you with the guidance and support you need to navigate this difficult journey while preserving your integrity and protecting your rights. The attorneys at Artemis Family Law Group, through strategic and level-headed representation, are committed to helping you achieve the best possible outcome while maintaining your integrity and not stooping to the level of your contentious spouse. Our attorneys will approach your case strategically, focusing on solutions rather than escalating conflicts. Lastly, while Artemis Family Law Group is fully prepared to advocate for you in court, the attorneys also prioritize alternative dispute resolution methods, such as collaborative law and mediation, to help you achieve a more amicable and efficient resolution whenever possible.

What is a Partition Action?

by

Partition actions are a unique option of last resort in a dissolution matter. When property is jointly owned by more than one person, and a point comes where the co-owners cannot decide on what to do with the property together, one of the owners may file a partition action with the court. A partition action is available for all kinds of joint owners (siblings who have inherited joint interests in the same property, for example), not just spouses. However, the issue can come up in a dissolution of marriage when the parties may not be able to agree on what to do with a jointly owned property (often the marital home).

There can be many reasons for this problem to occur. Most commonly, one spouse may insist on selling the marital home, while the other spouse will likewise insist on staying in the marital home.

There are typically two outcomes to a partition action: First, the court may divide up the property according to each parties’ ownership interest (this is typically only feasible with large tracks of land, not a residence as residences are normally deemed indivisible and cannot be divided without prejudice to the parties); second and more commonly, the court will order the sale of the property. It is important to note that the court is empowered to order the sale the property at a public auction, but the parties can agree to a private sale. However, a public auction can be a very risky option as there is no guarantee the house will sell for a certain amount. It will only sell to the highest bidder, whatever that amount may be. And further, any liens or mortgages on the property will have to be satisfied from the proceeds of the sale before that money can be divided up between the co-owners. Thus, a private sale offers the maximum amount of control over the process. (See Chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes)

Therefore, a partition action should only be pursued as a last resort, if the parties truly cannot come to an agreement on what to do with a piece of real property. It is important to note, however, that a partition action must be specifically pled for in a petition for dissolution of marriage in order for the court to have jurisdiction to order the partition of jointly owned marital property. Failure to include this request for partition can leave the parties and the court in a difficult position later in the process. That is why it is worthwhile to include a request for partition in the petition for dissolution so that it is available as an option, even though the parties should still do everything possible to come to a decision together on what to do with a piece of jointly owned property. One may also include a request in the partition action that the parties be permitted the right to bid on the property should be reach public auction.

Additionally, all individuals or entities with an ownership interest in the property must be included in the action for the court to order a partition. In other words, if Stan and Jean own a house together along with their son David, then David must be included in the partition action or the court cannot order the sale of the house. This is why it is important to make sure your attorney has a full and complete understanding of the ownership interests held on various types of real property.

Finally, in a dissolution of marriage, if there are significant enough assets and/or liabilities, the court can address who gets certain property through equitable distribution.

Do I need a prenup?

by

It is an understandably awkward situation—two people moving toward their wedding date to declare their undying love, through better or worse, through richer or poorer, etc., but before this happens, also negotiating a contract that contemplates a possible divorce.

Describing a prenuptial agreement as a contract is a general definition; however, in short, a prenuptial agreement is a document that dictates the provisions in a divorce. Often this means that instead of relying on Florida law existing at the time of their divorce, the parties have instead decided to create their own set of rules in the event they should divorce. This reason—being able to control how the important aspects of their divorce will be handled—is the main advantage in entering into a prenuptial agreement.

Parties enter into prenuptial agreements for various reasons.   It may be that one or both parties have accrued significant assets prior to entering marriage, and although these assets may be pre-marital, under Florida law, the spouse may be entitled to a portion of those assets. Thus, the parties can contract in a prenuptial agreement that all pre-marital assets remain entirely the assets of the party who had them before the marriage.

Another example is when parties have children from a previous relationship that they would like to leave their assets to once they pass away.   Under Florida law, if there was no will, those assets would first pass to the surviving spouse.  A prenuptial agreement could provide that the surviving spouse waive all rights and interests that they may have had pursuant to the laws governing probate.  A common reason that some parties enter into prenuptial agreements is to determine how the issue of alimony will be addressed in the event the parties divorce. The above are only a few reasons for parties entering into a prenuptial agreement.  There may not even be a distinct reason why a prenuptial agreement is needed, but parties wish to think toward the future.

Keep in mind, there are some issues that cannot be dictated by a prenuptial agreement—-namely, anything having to do with children.  Thus, a prenuptial agreement cannot determine issues of time-sharing (custody), parental responsibility, or child support.   Also, under current Florida law, there are certain temporary rights—temporary support and temporary attorney’s fees—that cannot be waived pursuant to a prenuptial agreement; however, many parties still agree to waive these rights voluntarily within a prenuptial agreement.

There is a misperception that prenuptial agreements carry little weight in the legal world and that if either party expends enough money on challenging the prenuptial agreement, they can undo any prenuptial agreement. To the contrary, courts are very hesitant to undo contracts between parties, and that includes prenuptial agreements. There is an abundance of case law that establishes that a prenuptial agreement may still be binding although one spouse is unable to read English but signs anyway; or a spouse was on anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications or other similar medications when they signed; or an agreement was signed only a few days before the wedding and the spouse was told that the wedding would be cancelled if they did not sign, etc.

The prenuptial agreement’s provisions directly impact the actions of the parties once married. Thus, depending on the controlling provisions, parties must make decisions as a married couple in terms of how assets are titled, how individual and joint funds are held, how to pay their income taxes, etc. In short, a prenuptial agreement involves developing and continuing a mindfulness toward important financial decisions and purchases during the parties’ life together.  Lastly, although prenuptial agreements are routinely perceived as a one-sided contract that benefits only one party, in truth, prenuptial agreements may be advantageous to both parties should their undying love, die.  At Artemis Family Law Group, we specialize in drafting and analyzing prenuptial agreements, from simpler agreements to more complex ones.  Contact us today to discuss whether and how a prenuptial agreement is something you should explore.

Does Florida have a presumption in favor of 50/50 time-sharing?*

by

*THIS ARTICLE WAS UPDATED PURSUANT TO THE REVISED FLORIDA STATUTE, 61.13, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 2023

Does Florida have a presumption in favor of 50/50 time-sharing?  The new, short answer is YES.

On July 1, 2023, the Florida law regarding time-sharing (formerly known as custody) was revised significantly.  After previous unsuccessful legislative attempts to do so,  the law regarding parents’ contact with their children now provides that parents should have equal time-sharing with their children.  Specifically, Florida Statutes section 61.13 states the following: “Unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interest of the minor child.”

What does all that actually mean for parents?  Simply put, the belief is that the children should be spending an equal amount of time with both parents despite the fact that their parents are going through a divorce or otherwise separating.  In order to overcome this presumption of equal time-sharing, one parent must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the child or children at issue.  Thus, the parent objecting would have to show  it is “more likely true than not” that an equal time-sharing schedule would not be in their child’s best interests.

The best interests of the children continues to be the primary consideration when it comes to time-sharing.   If parents cannot agree to a time-sharing schedule, the court still must consider the 20 factors listed in the statute when determining time-sharing.  Further,  the court has the final say on issues having to do with children.  Parents should be aware that because of this, even if the parents agree to a time-sharing schedule, there is a possibility a court may review their agreement, decide that it is not in the best interest of the children, and establish a different time-sharing schedule.

Another point of note is that the presumption outlined in the new law is a presumption of equal time-sharing, not of  50/50 time-sharing.  This may not be a large distinction to some; however, it is worth noting because sometimes, parents can become blindly focused on the numbers, 50/50.  We have seen in many instances, parents locked in  lengthy, contentious battles to ensure that the child’s time spent with each parent is exactly 50%.  This tunnel vision on the numbers, 50/50, often results in parents losing sight of some realities–that their specific circumstances (for example, employment, school, distance from each parent’s homes, etc.) are not conducive to an exact 50/50 time-sharing schedule and, more importantly, that their children will remember the quality of time they spent with their parents, not whether they could look on their calendars and assign them each 182.5 days per year during their childhood.

The Artemis Approach in any matter involving time-sharing is to consider each parent’s case individually and be guided by their family’s particular circumstances before, during, and after their family law matter in reaching a resolution that works best for them.  If you have further questions regarding time-sharing, the revisions to Florida’s time-sharing law, or any other family law matter, please click here to schedule a consultation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the more common, and resilient, misconceptions in Florida family law is the myth that there is a presumption in favor of 50/50 timesharing (formerly known as custody). While it is true that there have been some legislative attempts to create this presumption, no bill has become law that would create this presumption. There is a statement in Florida Statutes section 61.13 that it is the public policy of Florida that each child be permitted to have “frequent and continuing contact with both parents.” However, this is far from the creation of a presumption of a 50/50 time-sharing arrangement.

Instead, section 61.13 provides the judge a vast amount of discretion in determining the appropriate timesharing (custody) arrangement for each case. Section 61.13 lists 20 factors that the judge is compelled to consider when making a time-sharing (custody) determination (see Frequently Asked Question: When can a child decide who to live with in Florida? for a more detailed discussion of those factors). Additionally, section 61.13 specifically declares that “there is no presumption for or against the father or mother of the child or for or against any specific time-sharing schedule.”

Part of what has caused confusion is the change from the prior term “custody” into two distinct, but related concepts of “time-sharing” and “parental responsibility.” As discussed above, the law does not create a presumption of equal time-sharing. The law does, however, create a presumption in favor of shared parental responsibility. Shared parental responsibility is the idea that both parents are equally involved in the decision-making as it relates to their children and that all decisions are made on a joint basis, or not at all. Shared parental responsibility does not mean that the timesharing arrangement is 50/50. In fact, it is quite common for both parents to have shared parental responsibility while exercising a timesharing plan that is far from 50/50.

While it is true that there is no statutory presumption in favor of a 50/50 time-sharing plan, some judges, in the exercise of their broad discretion, will favor timesharing arrangements that are as close as possible to 50/50. On the other hand, some judges view 50/50 time-sharing plans more skeptically than other arrangements. Therefore, it is important to retain a Florida family law attorney, like those at Artemis Family Law Group, who are aware of each judge’s preferences and skepticism in a dissolution of marriage involving children or other family law cases concerning time-sharing disputes.

When can a child decide who to live with in Florida?

by

One of the more common misconceptions that we encounter in family law is the myth that once minor children reach a certain age in Florida, they can simply decide for themselves who to live with and the courts will defer to that preference. The reality is that it is much more complicated than that, as we discuss in more detail below. Quite simply though, children do not get to make their own time-sharing (formerly known as custody) determinations.

When the parents cannot decide on a time-sharing (custody) arrangement with their children, the Court must step in and decide for them. After hearing evidence from both parents, the Court will create a parenting plan which is based on what is in the children’s best interests. The parenting plan is a comprehensive document, which includes a time-sharing schedule.

The law instructs the courts to consider 20 factors in crafting this parenting plan (see section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes). These factors include, but are not limited to:

• each parent’s willingness to honor the time-sharing schedule and to be reasonable when change is required;
• how much parental responsibility would be delegated to third parties;
• each parent’s demonstrated ability to act on the best interests of the child instead of their own interests;
• whether it is in the child’s best interest to maintain continuity with the current living arrangement;
• how much time would be spent traveling in order to effectuate the parenting plan;
• the moral fitness of the parents;
• each parent’s physical and mental health;
• each parent’s demonstrated ability to keep the other parent informed of issues related to the child;
• each parent’s demonstrated ability to stick to a routine for the minor child;
• evidence of child abuse and/or domestic violence;
• evidence of substance abuse.
• “Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule.”

In addition to these, and other factors, the courts are also instructed to consider “The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.” So, what does this mean and when will the courts actually consider a child’s preference in crafting a parenting plan?

First, the courts are provided an incredible amount of discretion when determining whether or not to consider the preferences of a child in a time-sharing (custody) dispute. The statute does not simply instruct the courts to consider the child’s preference, but requires the preference to be “reasonable” and also only be considered after the court determines that the child has the maturity to express a preference.

Second, there is no specified age in Florida at which the courts will consider a child’s preference. The court will instead decide this based upon the specific circumstances of each case. The older a child is, the more likely the court will consider his or her opinion, but there is still no magic age at which the courts must consider this.

Third, the courts often have strong and justified concerns with eliciting a child’s time-sharing (custody) preferences. The reality is that children’s preferences can be influenced and even manipulated by a parent or be based on things like which parent is the disciplinarian. When a judge does agree to hear a child testify on this matter, it often occurs in chambers as opposed to open court. However, in practice, most judges do not want to hear from the child directly as they do not want to put the child in the position of “choosing” one parent over the other. A better option is to obtain a child’s preferences via the testimony of a guardian ad litem. Additionally, a child therapist is sometimes used to determine a child’s preference.

In sum, most of the time, the courts will not consider the child’s preference in making time-sharing (custody) determinations. If they do, it will be based on the individual circumstances of the case and not on any specific age at which a child will be permitted to make his or her own time-sharing decision.

Serving The Central Florida Area
Contact Us