Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure

What is a bifurcated divorce in Florida? This refers to a divorce case that is handled in two parts - the parties may not be ready to address issues in their case such as equitable distribution, alimony, etc., but they want to be legally single instead of waiting until they are ready to address all of those issues. So if the case is bifurcated, the court might enter a partial final judgment only dissolving the marriage, and then later enter another partial final judgment resolving the remaining issues in the case. This method is discouraged, though, by the Supreme Court of Florida as cited in the case Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 4D2023-1876 (Fla. 4th DCA September 25, 2024).

As cited in Shlimbaum, the Florida Supreme Court held in Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1980):

[W]e believe trial judges should avoid this split procedure. The general law and our procedural rules at both the trial and appellate levels are designed for one final judgment and one appeal. Splitting the process can cause multiple legal and procedural problems which result in delay and additional expense to the litigants. This split procedure should be used only when it is clearly necessary for the best interests of the parties or their children.

Claughton at 1062.

In the Shlimbaum case, the former wife filed multiple motions for contempt and obtained money judgments against the former husband during the course of their divorce case for unpaid alimony and child support. The parties subsequently entered an agreed parenting plan and had a partial final judgment entered which dissolved their marriage, adopted the parenting plan, and reserved on all unresolved issues. The judgment stated the parenting plan did not merge with the judgment, and that the temporary orders continued to remain in effect.

Years after one of the money judgment was entered, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the money judgments on the basis that they merged into the partial final judgment and were thus void. The former wife argued the money judgments were not void based on the language in the partial final judgment. The trial court agreed with the former husband and vacated the orders on the temporary support. The former wife appealed.

The appellate court explained “Generally, where a final judgment disposes of all claims in the case, temporary support orders merge into a final judgment and may not be enforced in post-judgment proceedings unless incorporated into the final judgment. [. . .] As it relates to final judgments, the merger doctrine stands for proposition that all interlocutory orders merge into a final judgment, extinguishing the trial court’s authority to enter further orders regarding the interlocutory matters.”

The court held “In this case, the sole issue adjudicated with any degree of finality was the dissolution of the parties’ marital status and parental responsibility for the minor child, except child support.” It continued “Having reviewed the partial final judgment, we determine that the language reserving jurisdiction, and stating the parenting plan was not merged, sufficiently incorporated the interlocutory support and enforcement orders. See Scott, 643 So. 2d at 1127. Thus, we conclude the trial court erred in determining the support and enforcement orders merged into a final judgment. Because the support and enforcement orders were not merged into the judgment dissolving the marriage, the support and enforcement orders (including the two final money judgments) did not become void upon the entry of the partial final judgment. [. . .] Rule 12.540 is designed to provide relief from final judgments and final orders. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(b) (‘On motion and on such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding[.]’). Thus, the support and enforcement orders (excluding the final money judgments of the arrearages) were not subject to rule 12.540(b) relief because those orders were nonfinal. Furthermore, even if relief under rule 12.540 were appropriate for interlocutory matters, the husband’s motion was untimely. Under rule 12.540(b), a motion to vacate is untimely if filed more than one year after the judgment or order was entered, unless the judgment or order is void. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(b)(5).”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand your rights and remedies in your case.