Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
What happens if a party repeatedly fails to abide by a court order in a Florida divorce case? One of the most drastic sanctions a court can impose is a default or striking of a party’s pleadings. The entry of a default means the well-pled allegations of the petitioner’s complaint are accepted as true. A default can essentially prevent a party from asking for relief from the court and can prevent the assertion of defenses a party might have to accusations from the other party. The standard for entry of a default is examined in the case Aponte v. Wood, 4D19-3370 (Fla. 4th DCA December 16, 2020).
The former wife filed her petition for divorce, seeking an equitable distribution of the parties assets and liabilities. The former husband filed an answer stating he did not oppose dissolution of the marriage, but that he wanted clarification on the former wife’s request for equitable distribution. Several months later, the former wife filed her financial affidavit and filed a motion to compel the former husband to file his. The former husband filed a response in Italian. After subsequent motions and orders were filed, the former husband continued to respond to each in written Italian. Because the former husband failed to abide by the court’s orders requiring him to produce his mandatory financial disclosure, the court held a three minute hearing at which a default final judgment was entered distributing the parties’ assets and debts and dissolving the marriage. The former husband again filed a response to the final judgment in written Italian, and when the court took no action, he appealed.
The appellate court first addressed the default, ruling it was error for the trial court to enter the default without a finding “of willful or deliberate disregard of a court’s authority”. The former wife argued that the former husband had not preserved this issue for appeal because he did not file a motion for rehearing. The appellate court disagreed, holding “In Fox v. Fox, 262 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), we held—en banc—that a motion for rehearing is not required ‘to preserve the issue of a trial court’s failure to make statutorily-required findings in alimony, equitable distribution, and child support’ proceedings. Id. at 793. In so holding, we noted that marriage dissolution cases are unlike other cases and that ‘[r]equiring a motion for rehearing is a rule that is too restrictive and imprecise to operate fairly where children and families are the focus.’”
Turning to the court’s equitable distribution ruling, the appellate court reversed, holding it was error for the court not to make findings as required by the Florida Statutes regarding identification of marital assets and debts, as well as consideration of the factors relevant to distribution. The court held “The instant case constitutes a contested dissolution action (at least with respect to equitable distribution) in which no stipulation or agreement has been entered. The Default Final Judgment does not sufficiently reference the ten factors enumerated in section 61.075(1). Additionally, although the Default Final Judgment distributes real property, financial accounts, business interests, and liabilities, there is no clear reference to marital and nonmartial assets and liabilities, or valuations as to any assets.”
The court ended its opinion with a reminder to the former husband that all court filings needed to be in English in order for the court to properly consider his position. If you need assistance with your Florida divorce case, schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney.