Affidavit Form Florida: Fill & Download for Free

I had a trial where the witness had presented an affidavit saying he owned no property in Florida when he was trying to get our state court action against him for lack of jurisdiction dismissed (owning property can create personal jurisdiction under Florida law). Later we got a judgment against his son, and sought to levy (seize) four houses located in Florida, that were in the son’s name. The father filed another affidavit in the son’s case saying he was the “true owner” of all four houses and the son was merely holding title in constructive trust for him. In the trial on the execution of the houses, we locked in his testimony that he was the “true owner” and then presented the court with the first affidavit. The judge was not amused, and ruled against him. “You can’t go down the hall and tell Judge Schlesinger that you don’t own any property in Florida when you’re trying to get a case dismissed, and then come in here and tell me you own four houses, to keep them from being seized from your son,” was essentially the ruling.

It is currently going on, with no solution and no end in sight.A friend/relative of mine married late in life, to a woman who was also a little old for a first marriage (35?). She immediately got pregnant and quit her job (high school guidance counselor, with a Masters Degree), citing a promise from her husband that if she wanted to “just raise the kid” and not work outside the home, that would be fine with him. (of course the actual kid was still 8 months in the future when she quit).Their “marital residence” was Florida. Both were licensed drivers, registered voters, property owners, and long-term residents of Florida. But both had family roots in Pennsylvania - him in Allegheny County, and her in Fayette County.On a trip “back home,” she told him that she wanted to spend another week with the baby at her parents home in Fayette County.Long story short: during that week she filed for divorce and full custody in WASHINGTON COUNTY, Pennsylvania, where neither of them had ever lived. Why Washington County? Her Uncle (now Lawyer) was a politically connected person in Washington County.Although their brief marriage wasn’t especially “happy,” this action took him completely by surprise, and being Italian, the part about relinquishing custody of his baby was particularly offensive. Not surprisingly, she filed a complaint against him in Washington County, claiming falsely that he had threatened to harm her and the child. This was clearly a gambit to reinforce her custody demand. The PFA order from the Washington County court is still in effect, which has the effect of dramatically limiting any time that he can actually spend with his daughter. One or two day-visits a year, and an equal number of brief, closely monitored phone calls.To make matters worse, she had gotten ahold of his tax returns. He is a consultant, and more than half of his revenue is paid out to sub consultants, laboratories, material vendors, etc., but she convinced the Court to use his total revenues - and not his net or taxable income - in calculating the amount of child support. Thus the amount was thousands of dollars per month - a sum which he could not possibly afford to pay.So he filed for divorce in Florida, which case was appropriately accepted by the Florida courts, since all three of the interested parties were legal Florida residents. But the Washington County courts refused to give up jurisdiction, and of course his worthless wife continued living with his child, unemployed, with her parents in Fayette County. The Florida court eventually just threw up its hands and closed the case, because there was nothing they could to to enforce their jurisdiction.He refused to pay the exorbitant amount demanded by the Washington County court and thus became a “deadbeat dad.” He repeatedly offered to pay the appropriate amount based on his taxable income (or even AGI), but the Washington County court never relented. The Court has NEVER even acknowledged the fact that his ex has a Masters Degree and extensive work experience, but has never lifted a finger to find gainful employment. Ever.Over the years (the little girl is now 14 years old), he has at various times, been arrested, lost his driver’s license, had his bank accounts frozen and had money confiscated, had a lien placed on his home in Florida, and seen his “arrears” in Washington County grow well into the six-figure range. He has voluntarily paid for private school (paid directly to the school), various dance and other lessons, orthodontic and other expenses for the daughter, and repeatedly tried to have his case even reviewed by a sane judicial person in Washington County who could see that he has been repeatedly and continually railroaded for more than a decade. (The Uncle is now retired, but that doesn't seem to have made any difference in the handling of his case).More than a dozen attorneys have been hired (I don’t do family law, and I am retired anyway), and all have gotten deeply enough into the case to see that there is no solution, and quit, after sending him sizable invoices.Most recently, the parties have “sort of agreed” on a monthly child support amount (still requiring him to pay all the other stuff), although his ex refuses to sign the papers that her lawyer has already agreed to. The custody thing has never been fairly resolved, and with the PFA in place (based on a false affidavit), he does not have a leg to stand on to get more parental rights.As a corporate lawyer who never did anything in Family Court, I can’t count the number of times I have said to the Father, “They can’t do that!” only to be proven wrong. They did it, and they are continuing to do it.The court doesn't even have proper jurisdiction to handle the divorce case, but the Father has never been able to get into a proper court to make that claim. And at this late date they would NEVER admit to such a long-term malfeasance. He has had to fly from Florida to Western Pennsylvania for each and every hearing - sometimes to be arrested when he appears in Court - and the Court has never acknowledged the burden this places on him, in time and money, just to try to save his relationship with his daughter.Even as I see this play out over the years, there is no question that this whole thing is legally unbelievable. But true.

There are a number of answers that state categorically that there are no protections at all and that’s why they are unconstitutional. Depending on how these laws are written, these answers range from incomplete to flat out incorrect.For example, at least one prominent and highly upvoted answer states that these laws bypass due process entirely, with no right to face an accuser and burden shifted on the defendant.This is not correct, mostly because it misunderstands how due process works and what due process means, but it also because is not, in all cases, even a correct statement about the law in any state I have reviewed.I’m a responsible and experienced firearms owner, and I happen to also be an attorney with the expertise to read these laws.Most people (especially gun advocates) tend to think of and characterize red flag laws as “call the police, tell them someone is armed and has said/done something scary, and the cops come and take away the guns.” This is not how red flags work, and is not even merely an oversimplified description.Look at the actual text of the Florida law, Florida Statutes 790.401.First off, a petitioner must file a petition with the court for an ex parte order allowing for seizure of the guns. This means that there is due process right here. In order to get an ex parte order, that petitioner (in Florida, it must be law enforcement, in other states, it may be a close household member or caretaker such as a guardian,) must file a petition with an accompanying sworn affidavit to the court for consideration. Not just show up at the door with an officer and take them. They have to get a court order first.You know what other things we do this for?Search warrants. Domestic Abuse Harassment Restraining Orders. Emergency custody in domestic abuse situations. Child protection matters.All sorts of judicial activities.These all include due process safeguards starting with the affidavit and petition process.These have all been upheld as constitutional because they have due process.That petition process has to meet a certain standard of proof, which may be as low as a “preponderance of the evidence” or “more likely than not,” and as high as “clear and convincing,” which is fairly certain. This is significantly higher than the “probable cause” standard to get a search warrant to seize your other property, I want to note, which is still due process.These sworn affidavits in support of the ex parte motions have to state, with particularity, the statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent. And because those affidavits are sworn, they carry a penalty of perjury.The burden is on the petitioner to do all this, not the respondent.If the ex parte order is granted, the supervising court must set a hearing on the matter for the respondent to contest it. This can range from as little as within three days in some states to 14 days in states such as Florida. Notice has to be served on the respondent, and the temporary ex parte order in some states prohibits law enforcement from seizing any weapons until the hearing notice has been served (which usually happens concurrently). All due process, requiring service of process, adequate notice of what the cause of action is, and providing an opportunity to be heard on the matter.At that contested hearing, the petitioner, not the respondent, has the burden of proof to show that the respondent is a danger to self or others. In every red flag I can find, this standard is “clear and convincing evidence.” This is not a low bar. It is between a preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process, all right there.The respondent at this contested hearing has a right to present evidence. More due process. They have a right to cross-examine witnesses, challenge evidence presented against them, to testify or not testify, and other evidentiary hearing due process rights.Only if the judge determines that the petitioner has met their burden of proof does the court then issue a permanent order, and by permanent, I simply mean not temporary. That order may well have an expiration date on it or even a “the person can have the guns back if they complete counseling requirements and a psychologist determines they are not a danger.”All of this is due process. Right here. Due process all over the place.In addition, various law enforcement may have internal protocols to provide more safeguards. In Florida’s Broward County, for example, a petition by law enforcement has to go through a higher-level supervisory officer in the sheriff’s office who specifically deals with this stuff, and then through two different attorneys, before the sheriff’s office will even file the petition, and in Florida, only law enforcement can file that petition.Colorado’s recently enacted statute, which can be found at Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13, Article 14.5, allows for family and household member petitions, but requires the petitioner to notify law enforcement in the jurisdiction where the respondent resides so that law enforcement can participate in the ex parte hearing (meaning if the sheriff shows up at the ex parte hearing and says, “we deal with domestic squabbles between these two constantly and we don’t see any reason to take the guns” that’s on the record), and the statute requires court-appointed counsel for the respondent. Due process all over the place there.On top of all of that, every jurisdiction I’ve looked at imposes criminal penalties on false or malicious reports ranging from misdemeanor to felony charges. Which means if you make that affidavit and you just did it to harass the respondent, you are subject to possible jail time if not heavy fines. More due process safeguards, right there.Additionally, there is no “right to face an accuser.” That’s a common mistaken interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s right to confront witnesses and evidence. That right is the right to cross-examine. There is not a right to face an accuser. That’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s never been a part of due process as a technical matter. You have the right to know who the accuser is in a criminal matter, but in criminal trials, that is the State. (We get this all the time with drug defendants who want to find out who the confidential informant is so the snitches can get their stitches.)These are not criminal matters: they are civil proceedings that do not carry criminal penalties such as fine or imprisonment. So, while you are granted a whole bunch of due process rights, certain specific ones granted to the criminally accused under the Sixth Amendment don’t apply anyway.Several answers complain about the lack of a right to a “trial” on the matter, and this is heavily misleading because a trial is not required here, but an evidentiary hearing is required. These hearings include the same due process requirements of a full trial: the right to call witnesses and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to present evidence, the right to counsel (sometimes even court-appointed counsel if someone can’t afford it state-depending,) and the right to have that hearing in a speedy fashion. The Rules of Evidence apply in force; if the the petitioner is relying on third-party hearsay, that is likely inadmissible.As noted above, no red flag laws in existence in the United States allow the police to bypass these procedures and just “SWAT” a house to seize guns without a warrant based on a 911 call. That is patently false and easily disprovable by looking at every red flag law enacted. It’s a common fear by gun advocates, and it is straight up not true.Law enforcement can only show up with a valid court order, granted after a petition and review by a judge, with a higher standard than a regular search warrant, under every red flag law I have been able to look at, even proposed ones such as Virginia’s.Lawful, responsible firearms owners are protected from abuse and malicious complaints with red flag laws with multiple levels of procedural safeguards and the threat of criminal prosecution for malicious petitioners who are not making a petition in good faith.This is depressing. Enjoy a basket of a baby fox and badgers.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and BNBR violation and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Nothing, not even abortion, brings out the lunatic fringe on my answers faster than writing about guns.Listen, I’ve been around firearms my whole life. I own firearms. I probably either own or have “just ask to borrow” access to more and more types of firearms than you do. I have field-stripped, repaired, and reassembled all of the ones I own and use.I have no problem with guns.I have a problem with irresponsible gun owners who make it increasingly impossible to defend owning guns. I have a problem with people who think that guns are a dick extension. I have a problem with vigilantes. I have a problem with serial abusers who use guns as an extra threat. I have a problem with people who think guns are a general solution, not a tool with specific applications. I have a problem with people who are not responsible guns owners owning guns.And because it’s guns I’m writing about, and that brings out that extra special faction, I’m not only going to be quick on the delete/block/mute buttons, but if this gets ridiculous in the comments, I’m just going to disable them entirely. I don’t feel like playing whack-a-troll all day.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.Same with whining about these rules and something something free speech and censorship.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.