In early August, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a new 60-day moratorium on residential evictions in certain parts of the country that continue to experience a “high community transmission” rate of the COVID-19 virus. This includes most of Florida. So if you are a Florida resident currently behind on their rent, you may continue to be eligible for certain protections under the new CDC order.

Prior CDC eviction moratorium orders applied nationwide. As noted above, the new order only covers those counties within the United States that are “experiencing substantial or high levels of community transmission.” As of August 24, every county in Florida meets that requirement, according to the Tampa Bay Times. However, if in the future any particular county goes 14 consecutive days below the “substantial” or “high” levels of community transmission, the CDC’s moratorium will not apply to that county until the rates again meet the required threshold.

The new order is also limited to a 60-day period from August 3 until October 3, 2021, although it is possible the moratorium may again be extended either by the CDC or through congressional action.

Are You Covered by the New Eviction Moratorium?

So does the CDC’s order mean that no Florida renter can be evicted until October 3, 2021? Not exactly. The order only applies to certain “covered persons,” which is defined as any residential tenant who files a sworn declaration with their landlord that all of the following conditions are true:

1. The renter has used all of their best efforts to apply for government assistance to pay their rent;
2. The renter earned no more than $99,000 during 2020 or expects to earn no more than $99,000 in 2021 (if the renters are a married couple, these amounts double to $198,000);
3. The renter is unable to pay their rent, in full or in part, due to a “substantial loss of household income” or “extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses”;
4. The renter has made their best efforts to pay at least part of their rent; and
5. Eviction would render the renter homeless, or force them to “live in close quarters” with others due to a lack of other housing options.

Again, the moratorium’s protection is not automatic. As the renter, you have the burden of filing a written declaration, as described above, with your landlord. Also keep in mind, the moratorium does not eliminate your obligation to eventually pay any back rent due. You must continue to pay what you can. The CDC’s order only prevents your landlord from taking steps to evict you based on non-payment of your full rent, provided you comply with the conditions spelled out above. Your landlord could still try and evict you for other violations of your lease separate from any nonpayment of rent.

Contact HD Law Partners Today

The COVID-19 pandemic has been stressful for everyone. And the prospect of losing one’s home makes things even scarier. So if you need legal advice regarding a landlord-tenant dispute, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation with one of our Tampa insurance attorneys.

Sources:

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-landlords-renters-cdc-eviction-180300359.html

https://cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0803-cdc-eviction-order.html

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

It is common practice for homeowners to assign their insurance benefits to businesses that perform repair work. But such assignments must strictly comply with the terms of the underlying policy. Insurance companies are under no obligation to pay over benefits to an unauthorized third party.

Appeals Court Grants Insurer’s Request to Reverse Summary Judgment

A recent decision from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals provides a useful example. In this case, QBE Specialty Insurance Company v. United Reconstruction Group, Inc., a homeowner sustained water damage to their property. The day the damage was found, the homeowner hired a contractor–the plaintiff in this case–to perform emergency mitigation services.

As a condition of receiving mitigation services, the homeowner and the plaintiff signed a written contract, which purported to include an assignment of the homeowner’s insurance benefits to the plaintiff. Of note, the agreement had spaces for the homeowner to provide his printed name and signature. There was a signature but the printed name space was left blank.

After completing work, the plaintiff sent the homeowner’s insurance company a bill for $10,897.91. The plaintiff and the insurer then negotiated a reduced fee of $8,603.20. But the insurer sent the final payment to the homeowner directly, not the plaintiff.

This prompted the plaintiff to sue, alleging the insurer failed to honor the terms of the assignment and the insurance policy. Specifically, the policy said that the insurer would pay the homeowner “unless some other person … is legally entitled to receive payment.” The plaintiff argued it was such a person.

The insurer’s response was that since the homeowner’s did not provide a complete signature on the contract with the plaintiff, there was no valid assignment. Indeed, the insurer presented evidence from a forensic document examiner, who testified the signature on the purported assignment appeared to be different than the homeowner’s known signature.

Despite this evidence, a trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding there was a “valid assignment” and thus the insurer should have paid the plaintiff directly for its services. The insurer appealed. The Fourth District agreed with the insurer that summary judgment was inappropriate, reversed the lower court’s order, and returned the case for trial.

The Fourth District explained the burden was on the plaintiff to prove there was a valid assignment. The insurer had already presented evidence demonstrating the opposite. Since the plaintiff had yet to present its own evidence rebutting the forensic examiner’s testimony, there was a material “issue of fact,” which as a matter of law cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

Speak with a Tampa Mold & Water Damage Lawyer Today

Insurance companies have every right to insist policyholders and potential assignees strictly comply with the terms of a policy. Certainly, no insurer is required to honor a forged or fraudulent assignment. That is why it is crucial to work with an experienced Tampa insurance attorney who can review the facts of a case and provide you with skilled representation. Contact HD Law Partners today if you would like to schedule a consultation with a member of our team.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8453754403865153681

Posted in Mold Water Damage | No Comments »

Insurance policies are contracts. As such, when an insurer fails to pay a valid claim, it is subject to suit for breach of that contract. But this works both ways. If the policyholder fails to live up to their contractual obligations, that can supply the insurer a valid defense to any alleged breach.

A recent decision from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, Nunez v. Universal Property Casualty Insurance Company, provides a helpful illustration. In this case, the plaintiff insured her home with the defendant. The plaintiff reported a claim in 2015 over purported water damage from two leaks in her kitchen and bathroom, respectively. She later submitted written proof of loss, asserting $50,000 in total damages.

The defendant investigated the claims. As part of the investigation, the defendant requested the plaintiff attend an Examination Under Oath (EUO), which is a common procedure in resolving insurance claims. The plaintiff refused to appear. Indeed, she declined to respond to multiple EUO requests. Accordingly, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s water damage claims. She, in turn, filed a breach of contract lawsuit.

At trial, the defense argued the plaintiff’s failure to attend the EUO was itself a “material breach of the insurance contract” preventing her from recovering any damages. The trial judge instructed the jury that it had to find that the defendant proved the plaintiff “unreasonably failed to attend her” EUO to sustain this defense. The jury ultimately rejected the defense and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

Sometime after the trial, the Third District issued an opinion in another case, American Integrity Insurance Company v. Estrada, that held when an insurance company establishes that a policyholder has “failed to materially satisfy any contractually mandated post-loss obligations, then the burden shifts” to the policyholder to establish their breach did not prejudice the insurer’s rights.

Based on the Estrada decision, the defendant in Nunez argued it was entitled to a new trial. The trial court granted that motion. Indeed, the judge issued a directed verdict holding that the plaintiff breached the insurance contract. The judge then ordered a new trial to determine whether the defense was prejudiced by this breach.

The plaintiff appealed, hoping to reinstate the original jury verdict, but the Third District affirmed the trial judge’s decisions. The appellate court pointed out that unlike the earlier Estrada case–where there was a genuine factual dispute over whether the policyholder complied with the insurance contract–here the plaintiff’s noncompliance was not in dispute. Instead, the plaintiff argued during the original jury trial that the defendant’s request for an EUO was itself unreasonable. But the Third Circuit said that was a legally irrelevant argument.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Attorney Today

Insurance litigation often involves a number of technical and fact-specific issues. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa mold and water damage attorney who understands the process and can work with you to secure the most favorable outcome. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12520752558871577193

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Even when an insurance company agrees to provide coverage for damage to a home, they will often challenge the extent or cost of the insurable loss. This then forces the homeowner to take legal action to protect their contractual rights. Such litigation then often ends up being a “battle of the experts,” with each side offering qualified testimony to establish the true extent of the damages involved.

Federal Court Revives Homeowners’ Lawsuit Over Hurricane Irma Damage

A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Izquierdo v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, provides an example of such a dispute. The plaintiffs in this case own a South Florida home that sustained roof damage due to Hurricane Irma in 2017. According to the plaintiffs, their roof had no leaks prior to the storm. Post-Irma, however, they noticed roof leaks and water damage inside their home.

A public adjuster inspected the property and recommended replacing the entire roof. Together with other damages, the adjuster valued the plaintiffs’ insurance claim at about $230,000. The plaintiffs later obtained an estimate for just the cost of replacing the roof, which came to $109,300.

Meanwhile, the insurance company conducted its sown inspection through a third-party administrator. The administrator concluded that while the storm “resulted in 24 fractured and 83 loose concrete roof tiles,” it did not create any “openings” in the roof that would cause water leakage. Instead, the administrator believed there must have been water leaking through “preexisting openings.” As such, the insurer said it would not replace the roof and only offered about $28,000 on the plaintiffs’ claim (which would then be reduced by a $14,400 deductible).

The plaintiffs subsequently sued the insurance company for breach of contract in Florida state court. The insurer exercised its right to remove (transfer) the case to federal court. To support their case, the plaintiffs disclosed their intentions to call three expert witnesses at trial.

Federal court rules require parties to make certain “disclosures” regarding expert witnesses prior to trial. This is to ensure neither side is unfairly surprised. The rules distinguish between expert witnesses who need to provide a written report and those who do not. This latter group is often referred to as “hybrid” witnesses, as their testimony combines both factual observations and opinion.

In this case, the plaintiffs classified their experts as hybrid witnesses, which do not require the same level of disclosure as pure fact witnesses. The insurance company objected and claimed the witnesses should be held to the stricter disclosure standard. The trial judge sided with the insurer, struck the testimony of all three of the plaintiffs’ proposed experts, and dismissed the case outright.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit said the trial judge failed to meaningfully justify their decisions. The trial court was at least bound to give more careful consideration to the plaintiffs’ arguments before throwing out their entire case, the appellate court said. So it returned the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance litigation is rarely quick or easy. But when your contractual rights are at stake, you should not hesitate to assert yourself in court when necessary. If you need legal advice or representation from an experienced Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact HD Law Partners today.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8285043308027703791

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

If you have ever filed an insurance claim, you have no doubt dealt with an adjuster, i.e., the person employed by the insurance company to review your case. But there are also individuals known as public adjusters who are licensed by the State of Florida to represent individuals, such as yourself, in protecting your interests during the claims process. Remember, the insurance company’s adjuster is there to protect the company, not you. A public adjuster can thus help to level the playing field, as they understand how insurance policies and laws work better than you.

Can Public Adjuster Also Serve as Disinterested Appraisers?

Of course, public adjusters are not free. They work on a contingency basis. That means you do not have to pay them any upfront fees, but they are entitled to an agreed-upon percentage of whatever settlement you ultimately receive from the insurance company. This makes the public adjuster an interested party in resolving your insurance claim favorably.

This “interest” was also the subject of a recent decision from the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, State Farm Insurance Co. v. Parrish. This case involved a homeowners’ policy claim arising from Hurricane Irma. The homeowner retained a company as public adjuster and agreed to pay them 10 percent of any settlement.

An employee of the public adjuster subsequently appraised the homeowner’s claim at $495,079.25, which was submitted to the insurance company, State Farm. In submitting this claim, the employee also invoked the homeowner’s right under the policy to “select a qualified, disinterested appraiser” in the event State Farm disputed the amount of the claim. The employee designated the president and owner of his company as the appraiser.

State Farm objected and filed a petition in Collier County Circuit Court to “compel appraisal with [a] disinterested appraiser.” In simple terms, State Farm argued that the public adjuster could not designate itself as the disinterested appraiser, since it had a financial interest in the final settlement. The Circuit Court dismissed this petition, however, prompting State Farm to appeal to the Second District.

The appellate court sided with State Farm, albeit with some confusion. The Second District noted that State Farm appeared to have invented a new type of legal proceeding. That is, there was no such thing as a “Petition to Compel Appraisal with Disinterested Appraiser” under Florida law. Nevertheless, the Second District decided to treat this as an appeal of a final order in a normal civil case.

And in reviewing that order, the Second District said it was clear that a public adjuster hired by the homeowner could not also serve as a “disinterested appraiser,” such as that term was used in the insurance policy. Since the whole point of the appraisal process is to recommend a monetary award to the homeowner, the public adjuster’s “contingency stake” in said award was clearly a “pecuniary interest.”

The Second District noted its holding put it in conflict with the Third District Court of Appeals, which has previously held that a contingency fee arrangement does not automatically disqualify an adjuster from serving as an appraiser, so long as that arrangement is disclosed. The Second District certified the conflict to the Florida Supreme Court, which has the option of taking up the case to resolve the matter.

Contact HD Law Partners Today

If you are involved in any type of claims dispute following a hurricane or other disaster and need advice or representation from an experienced Tampa insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1161512211674549717

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

After a bad storm, a homeowner might notice damage to their property and assume that the weather was responsible. From the insurance company’s perspective, however, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. In other words, the evidence may show that the damage to the property was the result of normal wear and aging and not a specific weather event.

When these type of disputes arise, the homeowner may assume that a judge will simply “take their word for it” that the storm was responsible and thus the insurance company is responsible for the damages. But that is not how insurance law works. If the homeowner disputes the insurance company adjuster’s findings, they need to respond with credible evidence beyond their own say-so.

Judge Strikes “Expert” Testimony Due to Unreliable Methodology

A recent decision from a federal judge in Jacksonville, Dias v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, provides a helpful illustration. In this case, a homeowner filed a claim with an insurance company, alleging that his roof was damaged in a storm that occurred on December 20, 2018. More precisely, the homeowner told the insurer the damage “may have been due” to this particular storm.

The insurance company retained an independent adjuster to conduct an inspection. The adjuster noted the homeowner’s roof had been in place since the initial construction in 1985, more than 30 years ago. Critically, while the adjuster did observe some cracks in the roof tiles, he concluded this was not the result of wind from a storm but rather “wear and tear over time.” Since the homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for “wear and tear” of this sort, the insurer denied the claim for roof damage.

The homeowner sued. In court, the homeowner presented a conflicting expert report from his own adjuster. The insurer also retained a second expert to re-inspect the property. As you might expect, the dueling adjusters came to different conclusions. The insurer’s expert found the roof damage was not caused by wind from the 2018 storm; the homeowner’s expert said just the opposite.

The judge, however, ruled the testimony from the homeowner’s expert inadmissible. Federal and state courts follow certain rules when admitting expert testimony of any kind. These rules require the judge to decide, among other things, if the expert is qualified and whether they used “reliable” methodology in reaching their conclusions.

In this case, the judge said the homeowner’s adjuster did not use a reliable methodology in concluding the roof was damaged by the storm. To the contrary, the judge said the adjuster’s “methodology” was basically accepting what the homeowner had told him, i.e., that wind caused the roof damage. The adjuster only examined the roof personally one time and he “did not review other records or documents.” As such, the judge found the testimony inadmissible. And since the homeowner had no other evidence to support his case, the judge dismissed in favor of the insurance company.

Speak with a Florida Homeowners’ Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance companies must balance their responsibility to policyholders with their fiduciary duty to shareholders. No insurer is required to pay a claim that lacks any substantiation. If you are involved in a dispute and need representation from a qualified Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12145268693202774204

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

When a home sustains water damage, the property owners understandably want to take immediate action to mitigate the problem. But sometimes this means they do not take the time to read–or follow–the terms of their homeowner’s insurance policy. Many insurance contracts require advance notice or approval before undertaking even emergency repairs to a property. Such provisions help protect insurers against fraudulent or exaggerated damage claims.

Florida Appeals Court Rejects Home Contractor’s “Gotcha” Tactics Against Insurer

A recent decision from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals, Restoration v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, provides a case in point. A condominium unit in Palm Beach County sustained some water damage. The homeowners hired a restoration company to provide water removal and remediation services. Under the terms of the homeowner’s insurance policy, coverage for “reasonable emergency measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage” was limited to $3,000 or 1 percent of the policy’s liability limits. The owners could ask to exceed the limit of the cap by asking for approval, which the insurer was required to grant or deny within 48 hours of receiving such a request. If the insurer did not answer the request within the 48-hour period, the homeowner was entitled to reimbursement for the full amount of any reasonable emergency measures.

In this case, the property owners assigned their insurance benefits to the restoration company. The company proceeded to remove damaged drywall from the property, as well as the wet, moldy portions of the affected walls. The restoration company then filed a claim with the insurance company, which was for an amount greater than $3,000.

The insurer held its ground, stating it was only required to pay up to the $3,000 cap for reasonable emergency measures. The restoration company then filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, alleging that the insurer had not responded to its claim within 48 hours and thus was on the hook for the full amount of its invoice. Essentially, the company argued that by receiving an assignment of benefits from the homeowner, that functioned as an “official request to exceed the $3,000 cap.”

The courts did not see it that way. The Fourth District, upholding a prior ruling from the Circuit Court, said the restoration company essentially engaged in a “gotcha” tactic. It sent an email to the insurance company that contained the assignment of benefits from the homeowner. What it did not contain was an explicit request to exceed the $3,000 cap. But by sending the email, the restoration company hoped to start the 48-hour clock. The Fourth District said it would “not permit such tactics.”

Speak with a Tampa Mold and Water Damage Attorney Today

Insurance policies are carefully drafted to ensure there is no ambiguity as to the obligations by all parties. And while an insurance company is required to pay any valid claims, that does not mean insured parties are relieved of their own duties to follow the terms of the policy when filing a claim. If you are an insurer involved in litigation over an improper mold or water damage claim and need representation from a qualified Tampa mold & water damage lawyer, contact HD Law Partners today.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3149558130986093115

Posted in Mold Water Damage | No Comments »

Most Florida homeowner’s insurance policies contain an appraisal provision. This protects the insurance company’s right to have its own appraiser review a homeowner’s claim, including the ability to physically inspect the property itself. This, in turn, minimizes the risk to the insurer of paying out on a fraudulent or exaggerated claim.

Florida Appellate Courts Reject Claim of Appraiser’s “Privacy” Rights During Inspection Process

A question that has recently come up before the Florida appellate courts is whether the homeowner has the right to record the appraiser and the appraisal. The Third District Court of Appeals addressed this question in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Chirino, in April 2020. More recently, the Fourth District decided essentially the same question in Silversmith v. State Farm Insurance Co., Fla. Both courts came down in favor of the homeowner’s right to record.

Looking at the more recent Silversmith decision, the homeowner proactively sued the insurer in circuit court, seeking a judicial declaration that they had the right “to audio/video record the appraiser’s inspection of the home even though the appraiser objects.” Not only did the circuit court deny this request, it actually barred the homeowner from recording the appraiser’s inspection “unless all participants consent.”

The circuit court based its order on Section 934.04 of the Florida Statutes. This law deals with the “interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.” Basically, the statute provides that it is only lawful for private individuals to intercept such communications “when all of the parties … have given prior consent.” The judge in this case interpreted that to mean “the only way to record by way of video or audio [of the appraisal] is with the full consent of all parties participating.”

But the Third District disagreed. According to binding precedent from the Florida Supreme Court, Section 934.03 only applies in situations where the speaker has “an actual subjective expectation of privacy, along with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable.” In this case, there was no such expectation. The insurance policy did not prohibit recording the appraisal. Nor did the appraiser have a “legitimate expectation of privacy while in the insured’s home for the inspection.”

In short, nothing in Florida law prevents a homeowner from “openly recording an inspection of her own home.” The Third District pointed to the Fourth District’s similar holding in Chirino on this point. In Chirino, the circuit court did grant a homeowner’s request to record an appraisal inspection. State Farm then asked the appellate court to quash that order. In rejecting State Farm’s request, the Fourth District held that the appraiser had no privacy rights in this situation.

State Farm actually did not cite Section 934.03 in the Chirino appeal, but rather pointed to the Florida Constitution itself, which guarantees the right to privacy. State Farm argued that a homeowner’s recording “might be unfairly used to harass or intimidate its appraiser.” The Fourth District said that was speculative at best, and if there was any harassment or intimidation, that could be dealt with later by the circuit court.

Speak with a Tampa Insurance Defense Lawyer Today

Insurance companies have every right to take appropriate steps to protect their appraisers and other employees. But cases like the ones above illustrate the limits of how far the courts will go to help. If you need legal advice or representation from an experienced Tampa insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today.

Sources:

• scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15017651811278215798
• scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16747027239303045680

leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0934/Sections/0934.03.html

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

On May 1, 2021, Florida courts adopted the summary judgment standard applicable in the federal courts, joining many other states that had already transitioned to the federal rule.

In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490. The state amended Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to adhere to the federal summary judgment standard. But what has changed, exactly?

What is Florida’s New Summary Judgment Standard?

Here’s what has changed after Florida’s amendment of its summary judgment standard:

1. Consistency with the federal rule. From May 1, 2021, Florida’s summary judgment standard will be consistent with the federal rule (Rule 56).
2. The burden of production is not onerous. Under the amended summary judgment standard, the plaintiff’s (or movant’s in motion) burden of production is not onerous.
3. Obtaining summary judgment without having to disprove the other party’s arguments. Under the new summary judgment rule, the movant is permitted to obtain summary judgment without having to disprove the other party’s case. The movant can present evidence to challenge the nonmoving party’s arguments or simply state that the nonmoving party does not have sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
4. Reasons for granting and denying summary judgment. The new rule requires trial courts to provide reasons for granting or rejecting summary judgment. The court must provide a “conclusory statement” stating the presence or absence of material fact to grant the judgment.
5. Time limits for filing/responding to motions of summary judgment. Under the amended standard, a party must file a motion for summary judgment at least 40 days before the hearing date. The response to the moving party’s motion must be submitted no less than 20 days before the hearing.

By adopting the federal summary judgment standard, the Florida Supreme Court is hoping to improve the fairness and efficiency of the state’s judicial system.

Does the Summary Judgment Standard Apply to Pending Florida Cases?

Many Floridians and their lawyers are confused about whether the new summary judgment standard applies to pending cases. While the amended rule takes effect on May 1, the standard also applies to pending cases in which:

• Summary judgment has been rejected under the pre-amendment rule. In that case, the parties should have a reasonable opportunity to submit a new summary judgment motion in accordance with the new standard.
• A summary judgment motion has been briefed but not heard. In that case, the parties should have a reasonable opportunity to change their motion in compliance with the new standard.
• Rehearing of a summary judgment motion is pending when the motion is decided under the pre-amendment rule. In that case, the court should decide the motion under the pre-amendment rule as long as a party can submit a new motion for summary judgment.

While the language of the new summary judgment standard seems unambiguous and clear, it remains unknown how lower courts would interpret the amended standard.

Speak with our Tampa insurance attorneys at HD Law Partners to discuss how the new summary judgment rule may affect your legal case in Florida. Call 813-964-7878 to get a consultation.

Resources:

law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

casetext.com/case/in-re-amendments-to-fla-rule-of-civil-procedure-10

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Often, when both spouses realize that their marriage is doomed to end, it is only a matter of time before one of them files for divorce. But should you be the first one to file divorce papers?

Does it even matter who initiates the process in Florida? And what are the possible pros and cons of filing for divorce first?

If you are considering filing a petition for divorce, it is highly advised to consult with a Tampa divorce attorney to understand your rights as the Petitioner.

Pros of Filing for Divorce First

Let’s review the benefits of being the first to file for divorce.

1. You have more time to prepare
   The most obvious advantage is that you will have more time to prepare for the divorce because you are the one initiating it. As a resolt, you can have more time to gather the necessary documentation and build a successful legal strategy with the help of your attorney.
   
2. You can choose the jurisdiction
   In Florida, one of the requirements to file for divorce is that at least one spouse must have resided in the state for no less than six months before the petition for divorce is filed. The Petitioner must file for divorce in the county where he/she resides. So, if you and your spouse live apart in different counties, you can ensure that your divorce case will be heard in your county’s court by filing the petition in your county.
   
3. You can protect your assets and finances
   Once you file for divorce, you are no longer liable for the debts incurred by your spouse after the date the petition is filed. However, you are still responsible for any debt in your name during the marriage. Filing for divorce first gives you the opportunity to protect your finances and assets before the divorce proceedings begin.
   
4. You have more control over the process
   By being first to file for divorce, you take the process under your own control. If your spouse is reluctant to get divorced or tells you, “let’s not rush things,” you can have more control by filing the petition for divorce instead of delaying the inevitable.
   

Cons of Filing for Divorce First

While there are several advantages of filing for divorce first, you should also review the possible drawbacks of being the Petitioner, not the Respondent.

1. You have to take responsibility for ending your marriage. Since you are the one who initiates the divorce process, you must take responsibility for ending your marriage instead of trying to fix it. For many, this is a rather big responsibility to take on.
2. You must pay the filing fees. The spouse who files divorce papers is required to pay the filing fees in order to initiate the legal proceedings. Without the filing fee, the court will not accept your petition for divorce.

If you are unsure about being the first to file for divorce, consult with an attorney. At HD Law Partners, our divorce lawyers will explain your rights and options in your specific situation and help you navigate the divorce process whether you are the Petitioner or Respondent. Call 813-964-7878 for a case evaluation.

Posted in Divorce | No Comments »