Family Law Attorney serving Volusia County, Florida
Our Practice
Practice Areas
- Marital and Family Law
- Family Law Appeals
- Collaborative Law
Our Approach
At Sheila M. Ennis, P.A., our practice is concentrated on marital and family law. Ms. Ennis is experienced in both trial and appellate practice, which ensures that your case is viewed from a global perspective with the goal of achieving a positive outcome that will withstand future challenges. Ms. Ennis is also trained and experienced in the Collaborative Law Process, which employs a cooperative alternative dispute resolution method that is ideal for addressing parenting conflicts and preserving assets in high net worth divorces.
Legacy of Success
Ms. Ennis has concentrated her practice on marital and family law since 2010 and has a proven track record of success at trial and on appeal. Check out a few of our representative cases on this site!
Appellate cases:
Bauerle v. Bauerle, 371 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the Order of the trial court that required the former husband to transfer the Highbanks Marina in DeBary from a family trust to a corporation, which the former wife had sought to compel. The appellate court also reversed the trial court’s finding that the former wife was the prevailing party in the litigation, as a result of which the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the former wife’s counsel in excess of $150,000.00 was also reversed.
Klokow v. Klokow, 323 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the order of the trial court that found the former husband was not entitled to a downward modification of his alimony obligation. The former wife was in a supportive relationship, and the trial court should have addressed the extent to which the former wife’s alimony was being used to support her live-in partner, as well as the partner’s non-monetary contributions to the former wife’s household. The trial court was also required to consider interest income the former wife received from her investment and retirement portfolio.
Lostaglio v. Lostaglio, 199 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
The Fifth District held that the trial court correctly declined to consider the husband's claims of adultery in determining the wife's entitlement to alimony, as there was no evidence that marital assets had been depleted. However, the case was reversed and remanded for the trial court to impute income to the wife, as there was no evidence the wife was unable to work. On remand, the trial court was also tasked with determining post-judgment income tax and health insurance obligations.
Tordini v. Tordini, 302 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
The appellate court reversed and remanded for recalculation the award of alimony to the wife as it was inadequate to meet her basic monthly needs while leaving the husband with a substantial surplus.
Hawryluk v. Hawryluk, 365 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s finding that the parties’ prenuptial agreement was valid and the finding that the husband would be required to pay alimony and attorney fees notwithstanding the existence of the agreement. However, the trial court’s order was reversed for recalculation of the husband’s monetary obligations to the wife, as the monthly total the husband was required to pay exceeded his available monthly surplus.
Trial court orders and judgments:
Arthur v. Arthur:
In the Final Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, the trial court denied the husband’s claims for alimony and attorney fees, as disparity in the parties’ incomes alone is insufficient to require one party to pay alimony to the other, or to contribute to the other party's attorney fees.
Hernandez v. Hernandez:
The trial court denied a father’s petition to relocate his minor child from Texas to Florida as the father failed to meet his extraordinary burden to establish that there had been a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances since entry of the original Paternity Order. In the order denying the relocation, the father was required to pay some, although not all, of the mother’s attorney fees incurred in the litigation, and the mother was entitled to makeup timesharing for a period when child was not returned to her as scheduled.
Crocker v. Crocker:
The circuit court judge approved the General Magistrate’s denial of the former wife’s motion to have the former husband held in contempt of court, as the former wife sought to sanction the former husband for acts or omissions that were not expressly required under the controlling court order. As the former husband was the prevailing party in the litigation, the former wife was ordered to pay the former husband’s costs and attorney fees in the contempt matter she had brought.
Bowers v. State:
The Circuit Court Judge, sitting in an appellate capacity, granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quashed a Department order suspending the Petitioner’s driver’s license as the precipitating traffic stop was unreasonable and unconstitutional.
More to come!