Dependent Children- In a case dealing with dependent children, the father of the children had sexually abused them. The children were also being emotionally harmed because the mother refused to believe the children. The mother did not want to participate in family therapy although the children needed it, and would not go until the court ordered it. Furthermore, there was a strong likelihood that the mother would allow the father to visit the family home which could put the children in emotional and physical danger.
In Perez v Perez 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2605, the District Court found that where neither the record nor the
amended final judgment nor the attorney’s fee award contains sufficient factual findings to support the
award to the wife that the award is reversed. The trial court made no findings concerning the parties
monthly expenses and insufficient findings concerning their need or ability to pay which required
reversal. The fee order contained no findings to support the trial court’s award of the portion of wife’s
fees it ordered the husband to pay. If attorneys fees are to be awarded as a sanction for litigation
misconduct, the court must make findings that support the reduction or enhancement factors set out
in the Rosen case and must explain which portion of the fees incurred was occasioned by the husband’s
misconduct. In the present case the fee award contained conflicting findings concerning the extent to
which both parties were responsible for the over litigation of the case.
In Toussaint v Toussaint 38 Fla, L weekly D194, the court was required to interpret the provisions of
the marital settlement agreement which a portion of the military retirement benefits of the former
husband was divided. The court held that the marital settlement agreement described by the trial
court is unambiguous and limited the portion of the military retirement pay of the wife to 50% of the
retirement of benefits that accrued during the marriage. The appellate court found that the marital
settlement agreement terms were ambiguous and the trial court erred in not taking in parol evidence
to elucidate the ambiguity. Resolution of this case involves interpretation of a marital settlement
agreement incorporated into the final judgment for dissolution of marriage. The court held that the
interpretation of the marital settlement agreement as with a contract is a matter of law putting the
appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as an interpreter of the written document. The
appellate court stated as a general rule evidence outside the contract language, which is known as parol
evidence, may be considered only when the contract language contains a latent ambiguity. A latent
ambiguity arises where the language employed is clear and intelligible and suggest but a single meaning,
but some extrinsic factors or extraneous evidence creates a necessity for interpretation or choice
among two possible meanings. Parol evidence is admissible to explain clarify the empty the ambiguous
terms. In the case at hand, the parties included no formula for computing the former wife share of the
former husband’s retirement benefits. Nor is there any language in the marital settlement agreement
that unequivocally sets the date from which the former wife’s right to 50% of the former husband’s
retirement benefits is to be calculated. The District Court held that the general magistrate and the trial
court erred in holding that the marital settlement agreement was un ambiguous. The District Court
reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to hold a new
hearing and allow the parties an opportunity to present parole evidence to resolve the latent ambiguity
as to the intent in drafting the respective paragraph of the marital settlement agreement.