Opening Statement 1

Below is the opening statement of Dee’s lawyer (Mr. B) from the temporary relief hearing on July 27, 2018:

THE COURT: All right. So I’m going to go
ahead and start with you, Mr. B, because,
again, the hearings are going to be on temporary
issues, all around the same. But we have your
notice of hearing in front of me. And why don’t
you tell me a little about your motions, kind of
tell me what the issues are going to be. You can
kind of — you don’t have to proffer all the
evidence. Tell me what the Court can expect to
hear and kind of set forth a little bit of a plan
for today. We do have two hours, which should be
sufficient enough time to handle the issues.
I’ll let you begin.
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor. Today, on
behalf of Dee, we filed a motion for
temporary time-sharing schedule, as well as a
motion for temporary alimony and temporary
attorney’s fees. And both of those are noticed
for today.
And I think Liv has cross-noticed a
motion for a temporary time-sharing schedule and
then some other temporary relief for this same
hearing as well.
And I think the issues are interrelated
between the two motions or the three motions that
are filed.
And I prepared a memorandum of law —
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. B: — kind of summarizing the
issues.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. B: But I think there are also some
legal issues that could be addressed to kind of
narrow the scope of this proceeding today.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. B: In Liv’s motion, she is
requesting exclusive use and possession of the
marital home, which is a leased property that the
parties were residing in together.
And because — a marital home can only be
awarded for exclusive use and possession if it’s
attached to some kind of support obligation,
whether it be child support or alimony. And if
there’s no support awarded to the wife on a
temporary or permanent basis, then exclusive
possession of the home cannot be granted to the
wife.
So I’d like to kind of keep that in mind.
THE COURT: Do you have some authority for
that?
MR. B: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s the first I’ve heard that.
That doesn’t mean it’s not true; it’s just the first I’ve heard it.
MR. B: And there’s a Florida Supreme
Court case, Duncan v. Duncan, and a First DCA
case, Erickson v. Erickson, which quotes Duncan v.
Duncan. But I think Erickson v. Erickson is a
little bit more on point in that it states that —
in Erickson v. Erickson, the wife initially pled
for alimony — the children were already above the
age of majority — but then subsequently amended
her pleadings to remove any requests for alimony.
So the issue of any kind of support was not
before the Court in any way, and the Court
ultimately awarded exclusive use and possession of
the marital home to the wife in Erickson, in the
Erickson case.
But the District Court of Appeals reversed
that, saying because those issues weren’t even
before the Court, there was no legal justification
for the award of exclusive use and possession.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B: And Duncan kind of — the facts
are — there are multiple different properties in
Duncan, but the other factor that this Court can
award exclusive use and possession is if it’s
necessary to preserve the value of the marital

home, which in this case is inapplicable because
there’s no —
THE COURT: It’s a leased property.
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
And then the second legal issue, in the
wife’s temporary relief motion, she is requesting
the repayment of what is clarified in the motion
as a marital debt for some kind of car insurance
payments. And any partial interim equitable
distribution of marital debts or any kind of
marital property needs to be made in a sworn
motion under the terms of the statute, which is
61.075, Subsection 5.
And there also needs to be good cause shown.
And “good cause” is defined in the statute as
extraordinary circumstances that require this
distribution of that marital asset or liability.
In this case, I think it’s more equitable
to — for the Court to determine the full
equitable distribution of marital assets and
liabilities at a final hearing, instead of
piecemeal on certain payments that may have been
made. I think it would be easier to address those
issues in totality.
And there’s no good cause shown, and the
motion itself that was filed today was not a sworn
motion, as is required by the statute.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B: In the husband’s motion for
temporary time-sharing schedule, he is requesting
temporary — some kind of temporary time-sharing
that includes overnight time-sharing and to — you
know, I know we’re going to present evidence on
this, but in summary, he is requesting every other
weekend time-sharing, Friday, Saturday, Sunday
overnights every other weekend, and then to
continue the current temporary schedule of the
Tuesday, Thursday —
THE COURT: So let me get this. So Friday
would be after school? The child is school age?
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You’re asking for after school.
And then dropoff on Sunday at what time?
MR. B: To drop off at school Monday, so
it would be a Sunday overnight, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sunday, Monday drop off. Okay.
So every other weekend. And what was the other
thing?
MR. B: And then to continue the current
temporary time-sharing schedule of a Tuesday and a
Thursday dinner until 7:30 with the husband, where
he could pick up the child after school and then
have dinner with her and exchange with Liv at
7:30, as is being done currently.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B: So there’s a temporary
time-sharing schedule being requested, and the
husband is also requesting temporary child support
pursuant to the guidelines.
And attached to the memorandum of law before
Your Honor are a number of different guidelines
based on different situations, depending on how
Your Honor rules today.
THE COURT: Would there be temporary child
support under your request of every other weekend?
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B: There would be a child support
obligation.
And Dee is also requesting temporary
alimony, so there are also guidelines calculated
attributing for different alimony payments as well
if Your Honor would award those today.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. B: And that is just based on the six

overnights per month. And, you know, we will get
into this with evidence, but Dee lives with
his mother in an age-restricted community, so
there are certain restrictions on overnight
guests. But he is in the process of looking for a
new — his own apartment now that he has kind of a
more definite schedule of when he can work.
So upon that, I think he would like to change
the time-sharing plan on a permanent basis for
more equal time-sharing or perhaps majority
time-sharing. But for now, on a temporary basis,
we are requesting six overnights per month.
THE COURT: I recall the issue of the current
living situation as far as there being an issue.
So why don’t you take a second to kind of address
for me what any effect — if the Court grants any
type of time-sharing overnights, how does that
play into the —
MR. B: Would Your Honor prefer for me to
proffer the evidence?
THE COURT: Sure, you can just kind of
proffer it to me.
MR. B: Sure. In the declaration of
condominium for the condominium association where
Dee’s mother lives, it has a requirement that

there can be overnight guests who are under the
age of 18 who live there so long as one of the
occupants is over the age of 55.
But the maximum amount of overnights that an
overnight guest under the age of 18 can live there
is 30 overnights every six months. So that comes
out to six overnights per week — or per month.
I’m sorry.
THE COURT: And forgive me. So that would
encompass the child. For some reason, I don’t
have my notes from the last hearing, although I
know I put on there that it’s —
You have one daughter, if I remember
correctly.
DEE: Yes.
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I just don’t remember her name; I
remember the age. What’s the name and age of your
daughter?
DEE: Amber. Age is 9.
THE COURT: Amber, 9 years of age.
Okay. So that clause — that would cover Amber.
Does that also encompass Dee? Because is he
considered as part of that, in that calculation?
Again, I don’t know his age. I don’t know the
requirements of all that, so —
MR. B: No, Your Honor, because he’s over
the age of 18. So that clause only applies to
overnight guests under the age of 18.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there any clause that
prohibits him from staying there?
MR. B: Not that I am aware of, Your
Honor.
DEE: No.
THE COURT: All right. So explain to me a
little bit more about your temporary alimony
request.
And both parties have filed financial
affidavits. Liv makes approximately $8,000
per month in gross income, and Dee — now
that he is able to more consistently work, he’s
making —
Are you a painter, if I remember correctly?
DEE: Yes, sir.
MR. B: In his financial affidavit, his
gross income is approximately 25 to 2800 per
month. So based on the standard of living during
the marriage between the parties and now that they
are living separately in different homes, to meet
that need of the husband at the level — the
standard of living during the marriage when the
parties were living together, he is requesting
between 500 and $1,000 per month in alimony.
And then lastly, Dee is requesting for
payment of his attorney’s fees to date, as well as
prospective attorney’s fees for — if this needs
to go to a final hearing.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to tell me
about the — let’s talk about attorney fee
requests. I’ll call it the current, up to today’s
date.
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And then we’ll talk about
prospective separately.
MR. B: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So tell me a little bit about the
current, up to today’s date, what’s been paid,
what is his responsibility.
MR. B: The numbers are in the memo in
the final section, but to date —
THE COURT: Here it is. I’m sorry. I didn’t
get to it. I thought I was at the last page, but
I wasn’t.
MR. B: Mr. Wolf has incurred fees in the
amount of 7,000, approximately $7,000. And he has
paid 6,000 with the initial retainer, and he is
requesting $12,000 for the trial, based on an
estimation.
So, I mean, it can always be addressed at the
end, but the $12,000 is an estimation based on the
preparation for a one-day trial based on the
issues in this case.
THE COURT: So that would be through trial.
MR. B: Through trial, Your Honor, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else before
I move to Ms. Dot? D. Forgive me.
MR. B: I think the remaining things that
I would want to add are things that should be
produced with the evidence —
THE COURT: Okay. Sounds good.
MR. B: — you know, specific factors and
such.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.