Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Relocation Issues
In this day and age, when family units break apart and realign regularly, when employment is more transient than permanent, when transportation is affordable and global communication is instantaneous, relocating to another city or state, or even another country, is more common than ever. While the reasons for moving seem countless, a primary residential parent's ability to relocate with the children may be severally limited by the laws in his or her state.
Because of the high mobility of its population, family law courts in the authors' home state of Florida face questions involving relocation on a regular basis. While these cases are numerous, they are hardly routine. Each such case pits the residential parent's desire to establish a new career, or to follow a new spouse, or to live near relatives, against the child's need to maintain a close relationship with the other parent.
To assist the courts with this difficult and highly contentious issue, in 2006, the Florida legislature redefined the standards by which a divorced parent may relocate with a minor child by amending Florida Statute ' 61.13 to create Florida Statute
' 61.13001. Section 61.13001 restricts the primary residential parent's ability to relocate more than 50 miles away from his/her current primary residence without either an agreement between the parties or leave of court. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the enactment of ' 61.13001, the ardent family law practitioner should recognize that the ratification of this statute, and other similar statutes nationally, provides a blue print for structuring Final Judgments and Marital Settlement Agreements so as to help avoid litigating the issue of relocation in a post-dissolution action, or failing that, to navigate relocation litigation successfully.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?