Stay tuned for the upcoming events. We have the Scholarship Gala coming up on June 26 and we have a BBQ fun day coming in July.   Watch for the yahoo post to be coming soon.

 We appreciate Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A.'s sponsorship of our newsletter this month and as a supportive Patron Member of CFPA. If you wish to know more about Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., please click on the link to their web site.  

Leslie Brown, CP, FRP
Certified Paralegal/Florida Registered Paralegal
CFPA President - 2013
President@cfpainc.org

Ways for Paralegals to Avoid

Potential Headaches Induced by  

Email Service Rule Changes

By Anne Hughes, ACP, FCP, FRP

Do you remember back in July 2012 the rush to change the rules in Florida to require email service of documents on opposing counsel rather than sending by postal mail? Are you aware that since the ePortal became mandatory the Supreme Court has relaxed/amended those requirements to state that if the attorneys mutually agree to US postal mail service, they are now not required to use email service. In fact, the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar approved the proposal of amendments to the new email service rules by a vote of 28-0. After considering proposals from the legal community with regard to the Supreme Court decision SC11-399, amended rule 2.516, Fla. R. Jud. P. to now include:  

Subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail ("email")) and (b)(1)(B) (Exception to Email Service on Attorneys) are amended to allow parties to stipulate to methods of service other than email;

Subdivision (b)(1)(A) (Service on Attorneys) is amended to clarify that an attorney need not file a separate designation of email address; and

Subdivision (b)(1)(D) (Time of Service) is amended to clarify when email service is complete.

Besides whiplash, this rapid rule change and subsequent amendment poses two specific problems for paralegals. The first is uniformity in your office policy to maintain compliance. If some cases are allowed service of documents via US postal mail and others are not - because of the prerequisite of a mutual agreement between attorneys, this can lead to a lot of confusion in the office. Your best bet is to have a conversation with your attorney to set up ONE office policy and be compliant with that policy. Because of the rapid changes in the rules relating to electronic case filing, email service, the ePortal, etc, your attorney may not be aware of the Supreme Court updates or rule requirements. Have the conversation and ask him/her to set an office policy for you and your coworkers to follow.  

...

Click the link below to read the remainder of the article. 

June 26th  

Scholarship Event at Maxine's on Shine 

Scholarship Fundraiser  

July 1st - August 10th

BACK TO SCHOOL Supply Drive 

CFPA will be collecting school supplies  

for Children's Home Society

Governor Scott Says No to Alimony & Time-Sharing Reform

By: Keith E. Walker, FRP, CFE

On May 1st, 2013, to the relief of many divorced Floridians and family law attorney's, Governor Rick Scott vetoed SB 718. The legislation would have financially devastated many Floridians.  The bill sought to eliminate permanent alimony, limit durational alimony to 50% of the length of the marriage, and create "alimony guidelines".  Legislators attempted to eliminate the standard of living as a factor in the determination of alimony, and it would have prohibited the court from considering a party's non marital assets if they have not been used or relied upon during the marriage. The bill called for terminating alimony automatically upon the obligor's reaching normal retirement age for social security retirement benefits.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation also would have allowed former spouses who entered into marital settlement agreements to go back and modify the provisions of those agreements based on the proposed changes to the statute without showing any substantial change in circumstances.  Former spouses who were ordered to pay alimony would have also been able to modify their orders based on the statutory amendments.

In addition to the alimony provisions, the bill had language providing a presumption that an equal time-sharing schedule is in the best interests of minor children. The proposed provision would have affected the court's discretion and ability to consider a child's individual needs absent specific findings of endangerment or certain defined exceptions to the presumption.

In his letter to the Senate, Governor Scott explained his reasoning for vetoing the bill "I cannot support this legislation because it applies retroactively and thus tampers with the settled economic expectations of many Floridians who have experienced divorce." Many family law attorneys believe that battle is not over, as SB 718 had strong support to overcome a veto, however, there was no time left in the legislative session to muster a vote.   Stay tuned for updates.  

15 Blogs Paralegal Students Will Love

By Jessica Pieklo  

November 17, 2010

You can find CFPA on these social networking sites:

Facebook

Linked In

Twitter