Law Updates

Broga v. Broga

Alimony and Child Support obligations are two very important concerns for anyone considering divorce or currently involved in divorce proceedings. In some circumstances, the Court may find that you should be making more income than you actually are and may even try to force you to pay higher alimony or child support based off of that higher “imputed” income.

Recently in Broga v. Broga, The First District Court of Appeal clarified what is required before a Court can increase your obligations based on this imputed income. First, the Court must find that you are voluntarily earning less than you otherwise could and, secondly as the Court in Broga clarified, the amount you could be earning must be based on the prevailing income earned in your community for the occupational skills that you have. There are two important things to note from the Broga case.

• First, your past income while a factor for the Court to consider is never sufficient by itself to impute future income.
• Second, the prevailing income for your occupational skills is limited to your community.

In other words the Court should not consider what someone with your skills might make in another State or even another city and this amount should be established by expert testimony. If you are facing the possibility of paying alimony or child support or seeking alimony and child support payments from someone else or are already making alimony and child support payments, make sure you understand the Broga case and surrounding law.

State of Florida v. Dorsett

Good News for Florida Drivers from the Florida Supreme Court, before the State of Florida can hold you criminally liable for leaving the scene of a crash involving injuries, the State must prove that you had actual knowledge that you were in an accident. In State v. Dorsett, the Florida Supreme Court over turned Mr. Dorsett’s conviction because the jury was instructed that the State only had to prove that Mr. Dorsett should have known he was in an accident. Mr. Dorsett denied that he knew he was in an accident and told police that he had no idea he had struck anyone. His conviction was over turned because the law requires proof that he actually knew he was in an accident. Based on this ruling you cannot be held criminally liable for leaving the scene of a crash with injuries unless the State can prove you knew you were in a crash.