Month: October 2024

Three Men Family Law Case Update 2024

Not even a hurricane could stop the popular Three Men and a Family Law Case Update webinar. The La Niña, high sea surface temperatures, and new appellate opinions have made 2024 an active season in Florida  family law. So, for anyone interested in discussing the latest developments in Florida family law, and hasn’t already registered, it is time again to register for the Three Men and a Family Law Case Update 2024 on Friday, November 1, 2024 starting at 12:00 PM to 1:30 PM

Case Update

Join me and AAML fellows/board certified lawyers, Reuben Doupé and Cash A. Eaton, for an active discussion on some of the major Florida marital and family law changes that have changed the family law landscape in 2024.

The course is an online webinar, and we will be reviewing many of the most important recent appellate opinions within Florida Marital and Family Law. Reuben, Cash and I will cover a wide range of topics from Florida’s newest family law cases.

Sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section, attendees will be eligible for 1.5 CLE credits.

Registration is still open so register here.

Injunction for Posting Negative Comments

Family law frequently involves domestic violence. Can a court enter a domestic violence injunction against former partners or spouses and prohibit posting negative comments on social media about their ex-spouse? A former married couple from Arizona just found out.

Arizona Injunction

Monumental Decision

The former husband asked a court for a protective order against his former wife. He complained that she was stalking his community, delivered his personal information to people in his community, was on his porch looking through the front window, blasted him on social media and harassed his friends and family for a year.

The trial court determined that she had committed the offense of harassment and granted the order of protection. Because of the videos on a social-media platform, the trial court added a directive that the former wife “shall not post” messages about him on the internet or on social media.

The former wife also testified, and she provided a copy of the article she and others had been interviewed, which accused the former husband of having committed stolen valor and other deceitful acts. She also admitted that she had shared the article with others.

Her defense was she had intended only to warn others of his alleged wrongdoing. She denied having trespassed on his property; she admitted having driven past his home, but maintained she could see into the windows from the street.

At the end of the hearing, the court found that her disclosure of negative information about him to third parties amounted to harassment, and an act of domestic violence. The former wife appealed.

Florida Domestic Violence

I’ve written about free speech in family law before. Family courts have a lot of power to protect children, and that can involve restraints on free speech. Speech can be enjoined under our domestic violence laws.

Domestic violence injunctions prohibiting free speech are subject to constitutional challenge because they put the government’s weight behind that prohibition: a judge orders it, and the police enforce it.

In Florida, the term “domestic violence” has a very specific meaning, and it is more inclusive than most people realize. It means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another family or household member.

Domestic violence can also mean harassment. Harassing means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Cyberstalking is another form of harassment via electronic communications. A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

A credible threat means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm.

Injunction Valley

Valley of Decision

On appeal, the Arizona appellate court agreed with the former wife. that the court misapplied the definition of harassment, and that her actions were “directed at” her former husband.

A court must enter an order of protection if it determines that the “defendant has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period.”

Harassment in Arizona can include contacting or causing communication with another person, following another person after being asked by that person to desist, surveillance of another person, making false reports to police or credit agencies for example.

But the appellate court found that the former wife neither made nor attempted contact with her ex as is required. They were “directed at” the third parties, not at him. The court concluded that her actions do not satisfy the domestic violence statute, and that the trial court abused its discretion by determining otherwise. The court vacated the domestic violence injunction.

The Arizona Court of Appeals opinion is here.

Cryptocurrencies are now Marital Property in South Korea

The South Korean Supreme Court, and now South Korea’s legislature, have made it clear that cryptocurrencies are marital property which are subject to property division during a divorce. Under the new law, South Korean spouses can claim a right to distribute cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin holdings, during divorce proceedings.

South Korea Bitcoin

Bitcoin and Bibimbap

South Korean divorces can be different from Florida divorces. For example, Florida is a no-fault state. But unless a married couple agrees to divorce by mutual consent, South Korea is strictly fault-based. This means that a party must prove adultery, desertion, extreme maltreatment or the whereabouts of the spouse have been unknown for three years to obtain a divorce.

South Korean divorces have been different from Florida divorces for another reason until recently, such as how to treat cryptocurrencies.  Most Americans are familiar with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. They are virtual currencies that use cryptography for security and operate on decentralized networks known as blockchains.

Cryptocurrency and other blockchain technologies have grown in recent years. Bitcoin is the most well-known cryptocurrency, and is currently valued at around $63,126. Under a new South Korean law, both tangible and intangible assets can be divided during a divorce:

Article 839-2 of the Korean Civil Act provides that a spouse may request a division of marital assets accumulated during the marriage upon the divorce in Korea.

This provision encompasses any “property” acquired during the marriage, including both tangible and intangible assets. Additionally, a recent Korean Supreme Court decision confirmed that cryptocurrency and other virtual assets, including Bitcoin, constitute “property” due to the recognized economic value as an intangible asset. Accordingly, any form of cryptocurrency held by a spouse during the marriage may be considered part of the marital estate if acquired during marriage in South Korean.

If a party is aware of cryptocurrency exchange was utilized, a Korean court can issue a fact-finding investigation or an order to obtain financial transaction records to verify the amount of cryptocurrency. In cases where a party is unaware of which exchange is being utilized, analyzing a spouse’s bank withdrawal records and other creative means of forensic investigations can trace transactions related to cryptocurrency exchanges.

Florida and Cryptocurrency

I have written about property division in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

When distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

While there is no specific case addressing the topic, under Florida’s equitable distribution statute, marital assets include as those acquired during the marriage, regardless of which party holds title. Additionally, a Florida appellate court last year approved a trial court’s equitable distribution of bitcoins and further authorized deducting Bitcoins from a Former Husband’s original share of Bitcoins, to reimburse the Wife for the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard drive.

A Cryptocurrency Armistice

Under South Korean law, when it comes to the actual division of cryptocurrency during a divorce, you may have the option to sell the holdings at the market value at an agreed time and divide the proceeds between the parties, or alternatively, simply divide the cryptocurrency holdings between the spouses, retain your interest and hope it appreciates. However, you should always consider the volatility of cryptocurrencies -meaning the price can change quickly in a very short time, making it possible for you to experience big gains or losses.

In some respects, tracking cryptocurrencies may be easier than keeping track of cash. That’s because you may be able to trace trades. blockchain technology preserves all transactions and does not allow external factors to modify or delete entries. Bank withdrawal records and other forensic investigations may allow for the discovery of unknown sources of crypto holdings.

The Korean Law Blog article is here.

Islamic Triple Talaq Divorce and the UCCJEA

Under Islamic law a husband can get a divorce pretty easily. It’s called the “triple talaq” and involves merely saying the word “talaq” three times. Will enforcement of the triple talaq in the U.S. under the UCCJEA be enforced? A married couple from India is battling the triple talaq divorce in Louisiana.

Triple Talaq UCCJEA

No Place Like Home

Khan and Azeez are citizens of, and were married in, India. However, they moved and have been residing in the United States since 2007.  They have two children. When they traveled to India in 2018, Khan deserted his wife and took her passport. He was granted a divorce under Islamic law by saying the word “talaq” (divorce) three times. However, triple talaq divorces were declared illegal and unconstitutional in India in 2019. This was made retroactive to 2018 under the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Marriage Act.

When Azeez eventually got a new passport and was able to return to the United States in 2019, she immediately filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Illinois. In his answer, Khan objected to the Illinois family court taking jurisdiction over his case because he was already divorced in India by saying “talaq” three times.

The Illinois trial court denied Khan’s exception under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and basic principles of human rights. The trial court held that the divorce by talaq and any subsequent child custody determinations were invalid.

In 2019, the Illinois court rendered a judgment finding the India divorce judgment based on triple talaq was invalid. The Illinois court dissolved the marriage, set child custody, and awarded spousal and child support under Illinois law.

Then in 2023, Khan filed a petition in Louisiana seeking to have his Indian divorce judgment recognized under Louisiana law. Azeez filed an exception of res judicata. The Louisiana trial court granted Azeez’s exception and dismissed Khan’s claims and Khan appealed.

Florida and the UCCJEA

I have written about the UCCJEA and the issues of religion and divorce before. The UCCJEA is a uniform act created to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other courts in child custody matters.

The UCCJEA also promotes cooperation with other courts and ensures that a custody decree is rendered in the state which is in a superior position to decide the best interest of the child.

The UCCJEA helps to facilitate enforcement of custody decrees – even when the custody decrees come from a foreign country – and has the aspirational goal of promoting uniformity of the laws governing custody issues. Under the UCCJEA, a foreign country should be treated as a US state for the purposes of applying the UCCJEA.

However, a U.S. court does need not always recognize a foreign country’s order under the UCCJEA. For example, if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights, the foreign final judgment may not be recognized here.

Triple Talaq Trouble

Khan argued on appeal that the Illinois proceeding was never made executory, and the divorce decree admitted into evidence by the Louisiana court was incompetent and inadmissible evidence because it was not admitted via an ordinary proceeding which would allow Khan to present evidence.

Generally, foreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit in Louisiana. In fact, courts in the U.S. are required to give full faith and credit to judgments of courts of other states under the U.S. Constitution. The UCCJEA is applicable to foreign judgments, and sets forth specific rules regarding the recognition, modification, and enforcement of child custody determinations. The statute applies to international cases as well as domestic cases.

The purpose of the UCCJEA is to “provide clearer standards for which States can exercise original jurisdiction over a child custody determination. The UCCJEA permits registration of an out of state custody determination. The use of the word may in the statute indicates that registration of the judgment is permissive.

Under the UCCJEA, a court has a duty to recognize and enforce an out-of-state child custody determination if the other state exercised jurisdiction in compliance with the UCCJEA or the determination was made under factual circumstances complying with the jurisdictional standards of the UCCJEA and the determination has not been modified.

Here, Khan argued that every foreign judgment afforded full faith and credit by this state must first have a full evidentiary hearing in order to make the judgment “executory.”  But the former wife in this case was not seeking to execute the Illinois judgment. Thus, the only question before the court was whether the trial court’s finding that the Illinois judgment was entitled to full faith and credit was erroneous.

The former wife successfully proved that a valid judgment was executed in Illinois; thus, res judicata applied to prohibit litigation of the same issues arising out of the same facts.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting full faith and credit to the Illinois judgment.

The appellate opinion is here.