IV. The Trial Court Did Commit Error in barring Wife from Participating in the Final Hearing; in Not Considering the Business in Equitable Distribution; and in Denying Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration Demonstrating Husband’s Fraud.
Wife Was Informed She Was Prohibited From Participating In The Final Hearing After Her Pleadings Were Stricken
The record contains Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration, sworn under penalty of perjury declaration, (2 R. 290) that Wife was informed by both her own and Husband’s counsel that she was prohibited from participating in any final hearing.
Knowledge of the Default Hearing Date
The final default hearing occurred on the trial date set before Wife’s pleadings were stricken. As laid forth in Wife’s Brief, Husband could have proceeded to a final default hearing at any point after Wife’s pleadings were stricken. Husband’s counsel made no attempt to notify Wife that he would be proceeding on the original trial date. There was no way Wife could have known.
The Reason Wife Did Not Put On Evidence
There is only one reason Wife was unable to put on evidence and that is because she was prohibited from doing so. Husband’s argument that Wife seeks to re-litigate (Husband’s Brief, pg. 28) is akin to stating Wife arrived at the court house only to find the doors locked. Wife’s pleadings were stricken; she was informed that she was prohibited from attending or participating in the final hearing; and, as the trial court stated: “So there’s really no other voice here, anyway.” (2 Tr. 4, lines 18-19).
Husband’s Fraud and the Family Business Never Addressed
In his Brief, Husband fails to address that he diverted the family business or that he omitted the business from the Equitable Distribution table – even though the date of valuation of the assets was March 22, 2011 – a date on which the business was still operated by both parties as detailed in Wife’s Brief (Wife’s Brief, pgs. 41-42).
Husband contends that Wife “unilaterally liquidated the parties’ marital funds” on the date she relocated (Husband’s Brief, pg. 5). In his Motion for Return of Status Quo, filed on March 22, 2011 (1 R. 29-30), he alleged Wife had removed funds prior to the date of filing of the dissolution. Wife did not relocate for 10 weeks after the dissolution petition was filed. Obviously, Husband is not being truthful on this point. Wife responded to that motion, detailing how the funds were distributed between the parties (1 R. 110-119). Husband fails to address the funds he benefited from.
Husband also fails to address the fraud he committed upon the Court detailed in Wife’s Brief (Wife’s Brief, pg. 45). In Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the appellate court addressed the importance of honesty on the stand. “Lawyers who advise their clients and/or witnesses to mince words, hold back on necessary clarifications, or otherwise obstruct the truth-finding process, do so at their own, and the client’s peril.”
