DM LAW

Divorce

Dissolution of marriage in Florida can involve very different issues depending on whether the parties have children. Florida is a no-fault divorce state. Under Florida Statute § 61.052, a court may grant a dissolution when the marriage is irretrievably broken, or in limited circumstances based on a spouse’s prior adjudicated incapacity. The statute also provides that when there are no minor children and the responding spouse does not deny that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall enter a judgment of dissolution once the legal requirements are met. Even then, Florida Statute § 61.19 generally requires at least a 20-day waiting period from the filing of the petition before a final judgment may be entered.

In cases without children, the focus is often on dividing property and debts fairly, addressing support where appropriate, and helping each spouse move forward with clarity and security. Under Florida Statute § 61.075, the court must set apart each spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities and begin with the premise that marital assets and liabilities should be divided equally unless the facts justify an unequal distribution. 

Under Florida Statute § 61.08, the court may award temporary, bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, or durational alimony as equity requires. Florida case law has long recognized that trial courts must use these tools to do fairness between the parties. In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court explained that equitable distribution and support awards are entrusted to the trial court’s reasoned discretion and must be guided by logic, justification, and fairness.

In cases with children, the court must address parenting and time-sharing in a way that protects the child’s best interests. Under Florida Statute § 61.13, a parenting plan must describe how parents will share daily tasks, include a time-sharing schedule, and address matters such as health care, school-related decisions, and communication with the child. 

The statute further provides that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration and, unless otherwise provided by law or agreed by the parties, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child’s best interests. Florida courts also expect each parent to protect the child’s relationship with the other parent. In Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1991), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a parent has an affirmative obligation to encourage and nurture the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Whether your case involves children or not, DM LAW helps clients navigate dissolution of marriage with both compassion and strength. We work to keep cases focused, organized, and moving forward, whether the issues involve parenting, support, property division, or trial preparation. When the other side is unwilling to be reasonable, DM LAW is prepared to fight for you and your family.

Child Custody

At DM LAW, we understand that children are the most important part of any custody case. We work with parents to keep the focus where it belongs—on the well-being, stability, and future of their children. 

Our approach encourages thoughtful solutions that help each parent understand the child’s needs and the importance of creating a healthy path forward. 

At the same time, when one parent is unwilling to be reasonable or act in the best interests of the children, DM LAW is prepared to fight for you and your children. Whether addressing parenting plans, timesharing, modifications, or disputes, we provide compassionate guidance and strong advocacy to help families move through difficult transitions with care and clarity.

Child Support

At DM LAW, we understand that child support is about making sure children have the financial support they need to grow, thrive, and feel secure. Child support is a right that belongs to the child, and these cases often involve important questions about each parent’s responsibilities and the child’s everyday needs.

We work with parents to keep the focus where it belongs—on the well-being and best interests of their children. At the same time, when the other parent is unwilling to be reasonable or is not meeting their obligations, DM LAW is prepared to fight for you and your children.

Whether you are seeking child support or responding to a request for support, we provide compassionate guidance and strong advocacy to help you move forward with clarity and confidence.

Presumption of Equal Timesharing

Under Florida law, equal time-sharing is often the starting point in cases involving minor children. Florida Statute § 61.13 provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or otherwise provided by law, there is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of the minor child.

If you believe a 50/50 time-sharing schedule is best for your child, DM LAW can help you present a clear, thoughtful case in support of that outcome. We work to keep the focus where it belongs—on the child’s well-being, stability, and long-term success. The statute also makes clear that the court’s guiding standard is the best interests of the child.

If equal time-sharing is not in your child’s best interests, DM LAW is prepared to fight for you and your child. We take a deep dive into the evidence, testimony, and witnesses needed to build a strong case and present the facts clearly and effectively to the court. Under § 61.13, the presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court must evaluate the statutory best-interest factors when creating or modifying a time-sharing schedule.

Driver License Suspension and Child Support

Cases with Special Needs

Cases involving children with special needs often call for planning that goes beyond a typical parenting plan. Our firm also brings personal experience with special needs children, giving us a deeper understanding of the practical and emotional challenges these families often face. Under Florida Statute § 61.13, parenting plans must address the child’s daily needs, including health care, school-related matters, and other issues unique to the family, and the court must decide parenting and time-sharing based on the best interests of the child.

When child support is involved, Florida Statute § 61.30 allows the court to go beyond a basic guideline number and consider extraordinary medical, psychological, educational, and dental expenses, along with special needs associated with a child’s disability that have traditionally been met within the family budget. In real terms, that can include therapy, medications, specialists, adaptive equipment, supervision, educational services, and other recurring costs that are essential to the child’s well-being.

Some families also need to plan for support beyond age 18. Florida Statute § 743.07(2) allows support to continue beyond age 18 when a child is dependent because of a mental or physical incapacity that began before adulthood. Florida Statute § 61.1255 defines a dependent adult child as an unmarried adult who is incapable of self-support because of a physical or mental incapacity that began before age 18. Florida Statute § 61.31 also requires the court to consider the adult child’s income, assets, care needs, supervision needs, available programs, and the effect that support may have on eligibility for means-based government benefits, and it allows support to be assigned to a special needs trust or pooled trust in appropriate cases.

Florida case law recognizes these protections as well. In Perla v. Perla, 58 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1952), the Florida Supreme Court explained that support may continue when a child cannot support herself because of a physical or mental deficiency. In Fernandez v. Fernandez (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the court reaffirmed that Florida law imposes a duty of support for an adult dependent child whose incapacity began before majority. In Skelly v. Skelly (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), the court allowed a parent to pursue extended support where incapacity and dependency began before age 18. In Loza v. Marin (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), the court made clear that timing matters, because once an ordinary child support obligation has ended, the procedural path may change and a late modification request may fail.

Uncontested Divorce 90 Days

In the right case, an uncontested divorce may be resolved in about 90 days, but every case depends on the court’s schedule and whether all required paperwork is complete. Under Florida law, no final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be entered until at least 20 days after the petition is filed, so even an uncontested divorce must satisfy the legal waiting period.

An uncontested divorce can be a more efficient and less stressful path when both spouses agree on the major issues from the very beginning of the case. Depending on the circumstances, that may include agreement on property, debts, parental responsibility, time-sharing, child support, and any other terms that must be resolved before a final judgment is entered. Florida law allows a dissolution when the marriage is irretrievably broken.

When both parties are prepared to move forward reasonably, DM LAW helps clients present a clear, organized, and complete uncontested case so it can be finalized as efficiently as possible. We prepare the necessary documents, help avoid delays caused by incomplete filings, and guide clients through each step with clarity and care. When the terms are agreed upon at the start of the case, an uncontested divorce can often be handled for a significantly reduced fee, giving clients a more cost-effective path to resolution.

Pre and Post Nuptial Agreements

Pre- and postnuptial agreements can give spouses clarity and certainty before or during marriage, especially when there is a family business, significant premarital property, children from a prior relationship, an expected inheritance, or a desire to define financial expectations in advance. In Florida, premarital agreements are governed by Florida Statute § 61.079. That statute requires a premarital agreement to be in writing and signed by both parties, allows parties to address property rights, debts, spousal support, wills and trusts, and life insurance benefits, and makes clear that a child’s right to support cannot be adversely affected by a premarital agreement.

Postnuptial agreements can serve a similar purpose after marriage. Depending on the issues involved, they may also intersect with Florida Statute § 732.702, which allows spouses to waive certain surviving-spouse and estate rights before or after marriage by written agreement, and imposes additional witness and disclosure requirements in some after-marriage waivers.

Florida courts will enforce properly prepared agreements, but they must be entered into voluntarily and with meaningful financial disclosure. Under § 61.079, a premarital agreement may be set aside if it was not executed voluntarily, was the product of fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching, or was unconscionable under the statute’s disclosure standards. Florida case law has long emphasized those same principles. In Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962), the Florida Supreme Court explained that a valid antenuptial agreement requires either a fair and reasonable provision or full and frank disclosure, together with voluntary execution. In Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), the Court held that postnuptial agreements may be challenged for fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching, or when the agreement makes an unfair or unreasonable provision under the parties’ circumstances. And in Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), a prenuptial agreement was reversed because the financial disclosure was legally insufficient.

DM LAW helps clients draft, review, negotiate, and challenge pre- and postnuptial agreements with a focus on clarity, enforceability, and long-term protection. Whether you are planning ahead, protecting a business or inheritance, or reviewing an agreement that may not have been signed fairly, we provide thoughtful guidance and strong advocacy. When the other side is being unreasonable, DM LAW is prepared to fight for your rights.

Termination of Parental Rights

Termination of parental rights is one of the most serious proceedings a parent can face because it can permanently end the legal relationship between parent and child. In Florida, these cases are generally heard in circuit court, and the court cannot terminate parental rights unless the required legal elements are proven by clear and convincing evidence. Florida law requires proof of a statutory ground for termination, proof that termination is in the child’s manifest best interests, and proof that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.

Florida law recognizes multiple grounds for termination, including circumstances such as abandonment, egregious conduct, chronic substance abuse in certain situations, material breach of a case plan, and other serious failures that place a child at risk. Florida courts have also emphasized that parental rights are fundamental, which is why these cases require close attention to the facts, the evidence, and whether the State has truly met its burden. In Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, the Florida Supreme Court explained the constitutional importance of the least-restrictive-means requirement, and in S.M. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, the Court clarified that once the legal grounds are proven and reunification would be harmful, the court is not required to choose a permanent guardianship over termination.

DM LAW approaches these cases with the seriousness they deserve. Whether you are seeking to protect a child or defending against an effort to permanently sever the parent-child relationship, we take a deep dive into the records, witnesses, services, and surrounding facts to build the strongest case possible. When the other side is being unreasonable, or when your child’s safety and future are at stake, DM LAW is prepared to fight for you and your child.

Distribution of Contested Assets and Liabilities

Property division can become more complicated when one spouse owned a home or other real estate before the marriage. In Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court held that the passive appreciation of nonmarital real property may still become partly marital and subject to equitable distribution when marital funds were used to pay down the mortgage. Florida’s own legislative bill analysis summarized Kaaa this way and noted that the Court provided a methodology for determining the marital share of passive appreciation. Florida courts’ Domestic Relations Benchguide likewise identifies Kaaa as the leading case on passive appreciation and notes that the current wording of § 61.075(6) sets out the formula for calculating it.

Today, Florida Statute § 61.075(6)(a)1.c. expressly includes as marital property the paydown of mortgage principal on nonmarital real property and a portion of any passive appreciation in that property when principal was paid down with marital funds during the marriage. The statute uses a coverture fraction to calculate the marital share and allows a court to depart from the formula if applying it would be inequitable under the facts of the case. That means title alone does not always end the analysis. If one spouse brought a house into the marriage, but marital income was later used to reduce the mortgage or enhance the property, the court may still find that part of the increased value belongs in the marital estate.

A Kaaa issue often arises when a spouse says, “The house is only in my name, so it is entirely mine,” while the other spouse points to years of marital payments, improvements, or contributions that increased the property’s value. In those cases, the court may have to examine the property’s value at the time of marriage or acquisition, the amount of mortgage principal paid with marital funds, whether appreciation was passive or active, and the valuation date that is just and equitable under the circumstances. DM LAW is prepared to dig into those details and present a clear, evidence-based case when real property and premarital assets are at issue in a divorce.