Wife motion in Florida

2010"Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory." Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

2010“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

2018See Caryi v. Caryi , 119 So.3d 508 , 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding provision in MSA that stated "[t]he parties shall each be responsible for his or her own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this matter" did not reflect intent by either party to waive right to seek attorneys' fees award in subsequent action); Planes v. Planes , 477 So.2d 42 , 42-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding footnote in parties' agreement stating that wife waives "any and all claims that she now has, or may ever have, to ... attorney's fees" does not prevent award of section 61.16 fees in enforcement proceeding).

2018See Caryi v. Caryi , 119 So.3d 508 , 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding provision in MSA that stated "[t]he parties shall each be responsible for his or her own attorneys' fees and costs associated with this matter" did not reflect intent by either party to waive right to seek attorneys' fees award in subsequent action); Planes v. Planes , 477 So.2d 42 , 42-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding footnote in parties' agreement stating that wife waives "any and all claims that she now has, or may ever have, to ... attorney's fees" does not prevent award of section 61.16 fees in enforcement proceeding).

1983In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), we cited Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 1949), as approving lump sum alimony where the wife had "assisted her husband in accumulating property...." We do not determine in the instant case that the wife is necessarily entitled to any lump sum alimony; rather, we hold only that the trial judge in the instant case has jurisdiction to award such lump sum alimony if it is found necessary to "compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage" in accordance with the standards set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris ; see Brown v.

1980In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), we cited Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 1949), as approving lump sum alimony where the wife had "assisted her husband in accumulating property... ." We do not determine in the instant case that the wife is necessarily entitled to any lump sum alimony; rather, we hold only that the trial judge in the instant case has jurisdiction to award such lump sum alimony if it is found necessary to "compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage" in accordance with the standards set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris ; see Brown v.

1983In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), we cited Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 1949), as approving lump sum alimony where the wife had "assisted her husband in accumulating property...." We do not determine in the instant case that the wife is necessarily entitled to any lump sum alimony; rather, we hold only that the trial judge in the instant case has jurisdiction to award such lump sum alimony if it is found necessary to "compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage" in accordance with the standards set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris ; see Brown v.

1980In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), we cited Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 1949), as approving lump sum alimony where the wife had "assisted her husband in accumulating property... ." We do not determine in the instant case that the wife is necessarily entitled to any lump sum alimony; rather, we hold only that the trial judge in the instant case has jurisdiction to award such lump sum alimony if it is found necessary to "compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage" in accordance with the standards set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris ; see Brown v.

2010If the Wife establishes her entitlement pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2006), and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997), the trial court is authorized to award her all or a portion of the reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees incurred for representation before this Court.

2008We note that in making an award of attorney's fees, the trial court may also consider, in addition to the financial resources of the parties, "the scope and history of the litigation; the duration of the litigation; the merits of the respective positions; whether the litigation is brought or maintained primarily to harass (or whether a defense is raised mainly to frustrate or stall); and the existence and course of prior or pending litigation." Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997).

2026An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.” L&K Creation, LLC v. White Feather Mgmt., LLC, 389 So. 3d 607 , 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citation omitted); see also Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action).

2025See Hurst v. Hurst, 192 So. 3d 1262 , 1262–63 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“The failure to afford Husband an opportunity to present evidence and be heard on Wife’s motion [for contempt] deprived him of his right to 2 procedural due process.”).2 To be clear, the trial court was well within its power to order Husband to respond to the motion or to notice Wife’s motion for hearing.

2024See Griffin v. Griffin, 392 So. 3d 230 , 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (holding that the former husband was precluded from arguing for the first time on appeal that the final judgment was inequitable and should be set aside due to the change in home value); Schmidt, 287 So. 3d at 1294 (holding that rule 12.540(b)(5) does not apply to arguments raised below but not fully litigated); Franco v. Thomas, 251 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding that rule 12.540(b)(5) was not a basis for the former wife to challenge the judgment on legal grounds where the judgment was entered pursuant to the partie

2024N.D. argues that the trial court erred in applying section 742.12(4) to remove his rights as R.R.D.'s legal father based "solely on biology." See Van Weelde v. Van Weelde, 110 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[D]espite the Husband's status as [the child's] legal father, the trial court granted the Wife's motion [to disestablish the Husband's paternity] based solely on biology . . . .").

2021McClain v. McClain, 105 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding: “A court is not at liberty to award alimony where the benefitting spouse has failed to seek such relief in the pleadings.”) (quotation omitted).

2021See Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d at 1120 (“No documents may be disclosed to Husband or his counsel until after the trial court makes the required in-camera inspection to determine that every document disclosed is relevant, timely to the issue of Wife’s then-present fitness as a parent, and either not privileged or within a valid waiver of Wife’s privilege.”); McEnany, 44 So. 3d at 247 .

2018Moreover, because “[t]he law is clear that an award subject to equitable distribution is not enforceable by contempt,” Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Williams 1 The court found that Wife's current monthly income is $2400 and Husband's current monthly income is $2240.

2016See Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 So.3d 319, 321 (Fla. 6th DCA 2015) (“We begin our analysis with the basic premise that a ‘[fjailure to give notice of a hearing to the opposing party absent a true emergency deprives the opposing party of its right to. procedural due process.’”); see also Chetram v. Singh, 937 So.2d 716, 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A person facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). 2 REVERSED and REMANDED.

2016See Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 So.3d 319, 321 (Fla. 6th DCA 2015) (“We begin our analysis with the basic premise that a ‘[fjailure to give notice of a hearing to the opposing party absent a true emergency deprives the opposing party of its right to. procedural due process.’”); see also Chetram v. Singh, 937 So.2d 716, 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A person facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). 2 REVERSED and REMANDED.

2015An interspousal gift is established by showing “ ‘(1) donative intent, (2) delivery or possession of the gift, and (3) surrender of dominion and control of the gift.’ ” Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Mills v. Mills, 845 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).

2015An interspousal gift is established by showing “ ‘(1) donative intent, (2) delivery or possession of the gift, and (3) surrender of dominion and control of the gift.’ ” Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Mills v. Mills, 845 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).

2013See Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So.3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). .

2012In Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So.2d 257, 259-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the trial court failed to award a former wife a refrigerator and freezer she acquired prior to the marriage that were in the former husband’s possession.

2012It follows that the trial court’s denial of the Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs was based on an incorrect finding that the financial resources of the parties were “relatively equal.” “[W]here, as here, the record establishes that the parties’ past, present[,] and anticipated earnings are not substantially equivalent, it may be inequitable to force the lower earning party to deplete her share of the otherwise equally divided assets to pay attorney’s fees.” Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

2011See Garcia v. Hernandez, 947 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

2010Id.; see generally Judd v. Schooley, 158 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla.1963) (holding that the wife could claim a permanent home in Florida and receive a homestead exemption even though her husband was legally domiciled in another state).