Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Delay in resolving a Florida divorce case can lead to complications which cost both sides a lot of money and potential “headache”. An appellate case which illustrates this is Kranci v. Kranci, 4D2023-1808 (Fla. 4th DCA November 20, 2024).
In 2021, the parties were at their final hearing in their divorce case, but they disagreed as to the value of the marital home. The court at that time urged the parties to discuss the matter during a court recess, after which the parties stipulated that the value of the home was $600,000. The trial did not conclude, and the parties agreed to attend mediation to try to resolve the case. The parties were unable to agree at mediation, so trial needed to be reset. Due to transfers of the case between judges, there was a delay in resetting the final hearing, and trial did not occur until more than 2 years after the original trial date. The former wife moved to set aside the stipulation on the value of the home, arguing it was now stale and the home had appraised for over $200,000 more since that time. The trial court declined to set aside the stipulation and urged the former wife to waive her appeal of that issue. Ultimately, the trial court entered a final judgment which awarded the former wife alimony, and using the 2-year-old stipulated value of the home, decided equitable distribution. The former wife appealed.
The appellate court first noted it was improper for the court to pressure the former wife into waiving her appeal of the stipulation issue in order for trial to proceed. It held “We reject the husband’s contention that [the court] acted properly regarding the wife’s rights to appeal the judge’s denial of the motion to set aside the stipulation. In the criminal arena, where judges are required to inform defendants of their legal rights, judges routinely advise defendants of their right to appeal. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c)(4). A trial judge has no business conditioning a trial, or appearing to do so, upon a litigant’s waiver of the right to appeal a pretrial ruling. [. . .] We are aware of no rule, statute, or legal principle that empowers a judge to engage in conduct that has the effect of curtailing a litigant’s appellate rights.”
The court held “The trial judge’s insistence on applying the 2021 stipulation to the 2023 trial was an abuse of discretion. The main impetus for the stipulation was to avoid a postponement so the case could proceed to trial and be resolved. An implied condition in an agreement is a condition that is not explicitly stated but is inferred from the conduct of the parties or the circumstances surrounding the agreement. The implied condition here was that the trial would conclude, and a final judgment would issue, within a reasonable time. A ‘presumptively reasonable’ time period for the completion of a contested domestic relations case is ‘180 days (filing to final disposition).’ Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(C)ii. Starting a trial anew over two years after the trial had begun and over four years after the case had been filed is so clearly unreasonable that it could not have been contemplated by the parties back in 2021.”
The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of the former wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs noting “The husband’s net income is over three times greater than the wife’s net income, and the husband possesses more liquid assets. After an equalizing payment based on the marital home’s $600,000 valuation, the wife was left with assets worth $203,921 and debts and attorney’s fees obligations of over $200,000.” Last, regarding alimony, the court reversed, holding “We note that the circuit court erred in relying on the husband’s expert to compute the amount of alimony. In calculating the wife’s need, the expert gave inadequate consideration to the standard of living enjoyed by the wife during the marriage and too much weight to her lifestyle in Iowa post-separation. Also, the expert’s calculation of the wife’s income was in error, as he used 40 hours of work for 52 weeks,4 when the wife testified that her employer did not provide more than 33 hours. We reverse for the trial court to reconsider the wife’s income and to fully consider the wife’s lifestyle during the marriage along with the other factors under section 61.08(2), Florida Statues (2019), in determining alimony.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to your case.