The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 61.57

61.57 Beginning, concluding, and terminating a collaborative law process.—

(1) The collaborative law process begins, regardless of whether a legal proceeding is pending, when the parties enter into a collaborative law participation agreement.

(2) A tribunal may not order a party to participate in a collaborative law process over that party’s objection.

(3) A collaborative law process is concluded by any of the following:

(a) Resolution of a collaborative matter as evidenced by a signed record;

(b) Resolution of a part of the collaborative matter, evidenced by a signed record, in which the parties agree that the remaining parts of the collaborative matter will not be resolved in the collaborative law process; or

(4) A collaborative law process terminates when a party:

(a) Gives notice to the other parties in a record that the collaborative law process is concluded;

(b) Begins a proceeding related to a collaborative matter without the consent of all parties;

(c) Initiates a pleading, a motion, an order to show cause, or a request for a conference with a tribunal in a pending proceeding related to a collaborative matter;

(d) Requests that the proceeding be put on the tribunal’s active calendar in a pending proceeding related to a collaborative matter;

(e) Takes similar action requiring notice to be sent to the parties in a pending proceeding related to a collaborative matter; or

(f) Discharges a collaborative attorney or a collaborative attorney withdraws from further representation of a party, except as otherwise provided in subsection (7).

(5) A party’s collaborative attorney shall give prompt notice to all other parties in a record of a discharge or withdrawal.

(6) A party may terminate a collaborative law process with or without cause.

(7) Notwithstanding the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative attorney, the collaborative law process continues if, not later than 30 days after the date that the notice of the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative attorney required by subsection (5) is sent to the parties:

(a) The unrepresented party engages a successor collaborative attorney;

(b) The parties consent to continue the collaborative law process by reaffirming the collaborative law participation agreement in a signed record;

(c) The collaborative law participation agreement is amended to identify the successor collaborative attorney in a signed record; and

(d) The successor collaborative attorney confirms his or her representation of a party in the collaborative law participation agreement in a signed record.

(8) A collaborative law process does not conclude if, with the consent of the parties, a party requests a tribunal to approve a resolution of a collaborative matter or any part thereof as evidenced by a signed record.

(9) A collaborative law participation agreement may provide additional methods for concluding a collaborative law process.

History.—s. 6, ch. 2016-93.

F.S. 61.57 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.57 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.57

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.57

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.57.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE MOORE- MCKINNEY,, 603 B.R. 855 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2019)

. . . $19,082.45 $111.31 5/24/2015-6/24/2015 ($148.50) 7/2015 $247 $19,082.45 $111.31 6/24/2015-7/24/2015 ($61.57 . . .

O BRIEN, v. CATERPILLAR INC., 900 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2018)

. . . On average the retirement-eligible employees were 61.57 years old, and nonretirement-eligible employees . . . This is borne out by the statistics: the mean age of the retirement-eligible employees is 61.57 compared . . .

F. McGOWAN, v. CHURCH DWIGHT CO. INC., 625 F. Supp. 2d 234 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . retain the filter element 14a within the housing 12a.) '143 Patent at col.3 1.064-67; eol.4 1.24-25; col.61.57 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FAUCETT,, 543 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.W. Va. 2008)

. . . Faucett’s girlfriend to search the residence they shared, where they found 61.57 grams of marijuana packaged . . . Faucett possessed an amount of marijuana, so the court simply adds the 61.57 grams of marijuana to the . . .

In RALPH LAUREN WOMENSWEAR, INC., 204 B.R. 363 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Golden billed two cab rides, totaling $61.57, to Kreisler in error. Testimony of Golden, R. 114. . . .

A. SULLIVAN, v. YOUNG BROTHERS AND COMPANY INCORPORATED,, 893 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Me. 1995)

. . . Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 61.55-61.57 (1983). . . .

RUDDER, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 890 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 1995)

. . . At the Lieutenant’s rank, African-Americans scored higher than whites (African-American: 61.57; White . . .

JETCRAFT CORPORATION, a a C. A. a S. A. a v. FLIGHT SAFETY INTERNATIONAL, a D., 16 F.3d 362 (10th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 61.57(c), which provides in pertinent part: No person may act as pilot in command ... of an aircraft . . .

In AIR DISASTER. BURKE, a a v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., 819 F. Supp. 1352 (E.D. Mich. 1993)

. . . and passing grades), § 61.39 (Prerequisites for test), § 61.43 (Flight test general procedures), § 61.57 . . .

JETCRAFT CORPORATION, a a C. A. a S. A. a v. FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL, INC. a D., 781 F. Supp. 687 (D. Kan. 1991)

. . . . §§ 61.57(c) & 91.9. . . . Jetcraft seeks a determination that Kimball violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.57(c) (by conducting the December . . . The only direct findings in the case relate to § 61.57(c). . . . Jetcraft, in attempting to salvage its claim of collateral estoppel, argues in its Reply that § 61.57 . . . Wesley Kimbell [sic], relating to waivers from Section 61.57(c).” . . .

ESTATE OF C. M. LARGENT, III, F. C. M. III, v. UNITED STATES, 910 F.2d 497 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 61.57(e)(1)® (1988). . . .

NORWEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY M. v. UNITED STATES, 828 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 61.57(e) (1986) (amended 1986), and (as the district court found) negligence per se. . . .

MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, v. POLYTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. S. D. D. R. T., 655 F. Supp. 1058 (M.D. Ga. 1987)

. . . . § 61.57(a) (1986). . . .

B. GAUNCE, v. H. T., 708 F.2d 1290 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 61.57(a)), violating air traffic control clearance and instruction (a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.75 . . .

LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,, 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . . § 61.57(a) (1981). We concluded almost ten years ago in American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, v. UNITED STATES, 527 F. Supp. 962 (E.D. Ark. 1981)

. . . . § 61.57) and his aircraft must be equipped with the appropriate instruments and navigational equipment . . .

UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, 524 F. Supp. 1336 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . . § 61.57. . Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1075, 1076, 1090, 1105, 2055, and 2064. . . . .

S. EDMONDS, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 642 F.2d 877 (1st Cir. 1981)

. . . . § 61.57 (1980), which provides, in part: § 61.57 Recent Flight experience: Pilot in command. . . . policy, however, he did not have a current biennial flight review within the meaning of 14 C.F.R. § 61.57 . . . “DECLARATIONS” incorporated by reference the federal regulatory requirements sét out in 14 C.F.R. § 61.57 . . . of the contract whether the parties intended that all of the technical requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 61.57 . . . have no doubt that the parties understood this term as requiring Edmonds to comply with 14 C.F.R. § 61.57 . . .

H. ROSS, a G. v. UNITED STATES, 640 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . . § 61.57(e)(1). . . . However, the plaintiffs offered evidence Ross was “current” under § 61.57(e) by the alternate method . . . attorneys for the defendant argued at trial that Ross’ alleged violation of FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 61.57 . . . Glossary, p. 21. . 14 C.F.R. § 61.57(e) provides: “(e) Instrumental) Recent IFR experience. . . .

S. EDMONDS, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 492 F. Supp. 970 (D. Mass. 1980)

. . . . § 61.57. . . . term required nothing more of Edmonds than what he was already required to do under FAA regulation 61.57 . . . Compare Item 7 with 14 C.F.R. part 61, subpart A, generally, and § 61.57(a)-(c). . . . Section 61.57(a) provides: (a) Flight review. . . .

UNITED STATES v. AIRWAYS SERVICE, INC. UNITED STATES v. LEE, UNITED STATES v. MARTIN,, 429 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Iowa 1977)

. . . allegations of violation turns on an insufficiency of information required by § 135.43 in light of § 61.57 . . . Section 61.57(d) states that no person shall act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers . . . of this information but disputes any requirement of such detail and protests the applicability of § 61.57 . . .

ARAGONA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 165 Ct. Cl. 382 (Ct. Cl. 1964)

. . . Fahy, it was agreed to submit proposal for a decrease in the sum of $61.57. . . .

A. LODGE, G. C. L. v. COLUMBIA PACKING COMPANY, 162 F. Supp. 483 (D. Mass. 1958)

. . . tax excess apportionable to the period from January 1, 1951, to February 16, 1951, in the amount of $61.57 . . . , the $200 attributable to underpayment of the rent for the year ending February 28, 1949, and the $61.57 . . .

P. R. E. J. v., 18 B.T.A. 265 (B.T.A. 1929)

. . . original answer, but in an amended answer admittted certain facts, and asserted increased deficiencies of $61.57 . . .

J. K. Co. v., 9 B.T.A. 287 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . affiliated status for the prior years, the Board said: In tlie case at bar three men holding directly 61.57 . . . phonograph company may be conceded for the purpose of argument, but we are not satisfied that in controlling 61.57 . . . To our minds 61.57 per cent of the stock of the phonograph company can not, in the light of all the circumstances . . .

RISHELL PHONOGRAPH CO., 2 B.T.A. 229 (B.T.A. 1925)

. . . In the case at bar three men holding directly 61.57 per cent of the stock of the furniture company held . . . phonograph company may be conceded for the purpose of argument, but we are not satisfied that in controlling 61.57 . . . -To our minds 61.57 per cent of the stock of the phonograph company can not, in the light of all. the . . .