Michael Lundy's feature in the current issue of Tampa Bay Metro Magazine.

Click here to check out Michael Lundy's feature as: "The Face of Marital and Family Law" in the current issue of Tampa Bay Metro Magazine.

Attorney Ben Older was interviewed on ABC Action News yesterday following the Ashley Madison data breach exposing 37 million cheaters.

Ashley Madison, the website that encourages spouses to cheat on their partners, has been hacked. A group calling themselves The Impact Team has threatened to leak the information of ashleymadison.com's 37 million customers, according to a report by Krebs on Security.

Ashley Madison released a statement acknowledging the breach, and apologized for the "unprovoked and criminal intrusion."


Click Here to Watch the Interview Video with Ben Older.

"It’s crazy, in the last probably month, I’ve had at least three new cases come in as a direct result of Ashley Madison," said divorce attorney Benjamin Older.

And Older expects a lot more if hackers follow through on a threat to release information on nearly 37 million users -- including nearly 50,000 in Tampa alone.

But even if your spouse is one of those users, an affair won't help you financially.

"Because it’s a no-fault state, you are not entitled to any financial award because of the extramarital affair," said Older.

Older says the popularity of online dating has created a swell of online cheaters. Most users count on the website to protect their infidelity and info, but a closer look at the website's terms and agreements, shows that the fine print reveals just the opposite.

According to those terms, "You acknowledge that although we strive to maintain the necessary safeguards to protect your personal data, we cannot ensure the security or privacy of information you provide through the internet."

So as you can see, if they are hacked, they’re off the hook.

"The fact is, there's no such thing as a hack-proof site," said Cyber Security Expert Mitch Neff. "The companies we entrust with our data can do their best, but things like this are just going to happen."

Jessica Felix is officially a Supreme Court Certified Family Law Mediator.

Jessica Felix is officially a Supreme Court Certified Family Law Mediator.


Please send an email to jfelix@olalaw.com to schedule a mediation.

Child Support Facts on Equal Timesharing or Visitation

It is a very common misconception among the general public that an equal timesharing or visitation schedule between divorced parents means that there is no child support exchanged between parents. However, this is not the case.

In fact, most of the time one parent owes the other parent child support even when the parents spend an equal amount of time with the children. This is because the number of overnights the children spend with each respective parent is just one factor that is considered in the calculation of child support.

Other important factors include each parent’s income and other child-related expenses paid by each parent, including health insurance premiums, among other expenses. Waiving child support, which is technically disallowed in Florida, could significantly impact a parent’s financial future.

It is important to consult with an attorney specializing in marital and family law before signing any agreement regarding child support.

Recovering Fees Pursuant to Administrative Order S-2013-075

by Michelle Ralat Brinner

A great deal of confusion exists among practitioners regarding the recovery of an award of attorneys’ fees, particularly regarding compliance with local Administrative Order S-2013-075 (the “AO”). Compliance with the Family Law Rules of Procedure and the AO is critical to recovering attorneys’ fees and costs for your client.

To comply with the AO, you must initially determine the nature and amount of the fees that you are seeking. Although it sounds simple, the requirements necessary to comply with the AO vary based upon these key facts. If you are seeking an award of temporary attorneys’ fees in an amount less than $50,000.00, the requirements and deadlines are different than if you are seeking an award of fees in an amount greater than $50,000.00. Currently the AO does not specifically address the requirements to recover fees in an amount less than $50,000.00 after a final hearing, but it is generally good practice to comply with the requirements of the AO as much as possible to assist the court in making its necessary findings to award your client fees.

To view chart click here

10th Annual Taste of South Tampa to take place April 12th

TAMPA, FL - The South Tampa Chamber of Commerce is pleased to announce that tickets for the 10th Annual Taste of South Tampa are now on sale, with a portion of the ticket sales benefiting Metropolitan Ministries. The Chamber’s signature annual event, to take place on Sunday, April 12, 2015, will feature live music, family friendly activities and an array of delicious food and drink samples from South Tampa’s best local restaurants. Older, Lundy & Alvarez law firm will return as the title sponsor of the Taste of South Tampa for the 6th year.



The chamber’s president, Kelly Flannery, said, “We anticipate the 10th annual event to be our largest yet with more food and beverage options than ever before and an increased interest in the event from the community. An added bonus for this year is that we are hosting the event at George M. Steinbrenner Field and each attendee will also receive a ticket to that evening’s Tampa Yankees game against the Lakeland Flying Tigers.”

The ticket price is all inclusive and includes: Unlimited food and beverage samples, live entertainment, access to activities in the Kid Zone, sponsored by Florida Hospital Centra Care, give-aways from sponsors and voting for the “Best of South Tampa” awards. New sponsor, Anheuser-Busch will also be providing various beer tents throughout the event.

Early bird discounted ticket prices are available online at www.TasteofSouthTampa.com until April 10th. Tickets may be available for purchase at the door if they do not sell out during pre-sale. The event will also feature a food drive for Metropolitan Ministries. For each non-perishable food item donated, attendees will receive an entry into a drawing for prizes from participating sponsors and restaurants.

Samantha Dammer, the Chamber’s board chair added, “With over 40 food and beverage options expected to be at the event, there will truly be something for everyone and the inclusive price gives attendees the opportunity to try a little bit of everything. We will also be bringing back the indoor, air-conditioned, VIP area this year which was a popular request from last year’s attendees.”

For tickets and to see a list of participating sponsors and restaurants, please visit www.TasteofSouthTampa.com.

ABOUT THE SOUTH TAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Established in 1926, the South Tampa Chamber of Commerce is an association of over 500 businesses and organizations. The chamber has strived to make the South Tampa community a better place in which to live, work, and play. Its active membership consists of local businesses, professionals, non-profits and government representatives who enjoy social activities and community involvement. For more information, contact the South Tampa Chamber of Commerce at 813.637.0156, or visit www.southtampachamber.org.

MEMBER DISCOUNT CODES:
General Admission @ $27 – Stcoc2015 (Pre-sale only)
VIP @ $60 – StcocVIP2015 (Pre-sale only)
Kids Under 10 @ FREE

SAVE THE DATE: April 12th – Tickets for the 10th Annual Taste of South Tampa are on sale now at www.TasteofSouthTampa.com!

January Case Law Summaries

by Michelle Ralat Brinner

Note: the below cases were pulled directly from the DCA websites. Before relying upon any of the following case law, be sure to Shepardize and/or KeyCite.

Florida Supreme Court

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure: The Court adopted proposed Rule 12.451 regarding taking testimony. This Rule mirrors Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.541, which authorizes a court to permit testimony at a hearing or trial by audio or video communication equipment by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown on written request of a party and reasonable notice to other parties. It became effective January 22, 2015.

First DCA

Burkett v. Kalaw, attorneys fees; motion for rehearing. Trial court failed to include sufficient findings to support the attorney award but First DCA was constrained to affirm because Appellant did not file a motion for rehearing to alert the trial court to the deficiencies in the findings. Appellant also failed to provide a transcript, and without a transcript the court did not know what evidence was heard beyond the documents filed in the record and it was unknown what issues were preserved for review.

Second DCA

J.A.I. & J.K.C. v. B.R., petition for writ of certiorari re: order requiring genetic testing. Appellant sought a declaratory judgment naming JMC as father. Appellee (BR) filed a petition to determine paternity. The trial court compelled JAI and JKC to undergo genetic testing. The Second DCA held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering genetic testing per Appellee’s request because Appellee was precluded from bringing a cause of action to challenge the paternity of the child. This is because JAI & JKC (Appellants) signed notarized voluntary acknowledgements of paternity, and, pursuant to Section 742.10, Appellee could not bring a cause of action. Because the Appellants were married after the child’s birth, and because they had signed the acknowledgement of paternity before Appellee filed his paternity action, he could not file a cause of action under Chapter 742.

Card v. Card, attorneys fee award. Appellant/Wife sought a temporary attorneys fee award. The parties entered into a joint stipulation in which Husband agreed to pay Wife’s temporary attorneys fees. The parties also agreed that Husband would pay Wife’s attorney an equal amount of fees that he paid to his attorney if the amount exceeded $20,000. They also reserved the right to argue whether the temporary fee award would be deducted from equitable distribution or part of a final fee award. By the final hearing, Husband had paid $43,000 of Wife’s attorneys’ fees and costs, including $19,000 for expert fees. In the Final Judgment, the trial court denied wife’s request for an additional $73,000 in fees, limiting the amount to that which husband paid his counsel through the final hearing. Husband’s attorney requested an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of Wife’s fees; however, Wife opposed this and claimed that the parties had stipulated that Wife would get the same amount of fees that Husband had paid, even though the stipulation only addressed temporary fees. The trial court agreed and no hearing was held on the reasonableness of Wife’s fees. A Final Judgment was entered holding that he amount paid satisfied Wife’s fee claim. On appeal, Wife argued the opposite position – that the trial court “arbitrarily” capped her attorneys’ fee award at the amount that Husband incurred. She claimed that the trial court erred because it did not make a specific factual finding of reasonableness, as well as on need and ability to pay. However, under the doctrine of “invited error,” Wife could not assert such a position on appeal because she opposed Husband’s counsel’s request for a hearing on reasonableness. Accordingly, the Second DCA held that the trial court did not err in entering the fee award on a matching basis without specific factual findings about Wife’s need for fees and Husband’s ability to pay.

To Read The Full Summary, Click Here.