This blog is now located at http://capecoralattorneys.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://capecoralattorneys.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Choosing a personal injury lawyer can be a daunting task. In Fort Myers and Cape Coral, Florida, over 120 law firms can be pulled up by doing a simple phone book search. With such an alarming number of choices, it's difficult to even know where to begin. Knowing what to look for in a personal injury attorney is the first step to making the decision that will best meet your needs.

Qualifications

You want to make sure your attorney is qualified to represent you. Some key things to look for are:

• Schooling
• Experience
• Bar and court associations
• Additional qualifications

You want to know the history of your attorney to make sure you are receiving the highest level of representation available.

Professionalism

In addition to qualifications, you will want to make sure your attorney shows a high amount of professionalism. You want your attorney to be kind, courteous, and personable, as well as being experienced and qualified to represent you. An attorney that takes the extra time to get to know about you and your case will better be able to represent you if the case goes to trial. A professional atmosphere will help foster a sense of certainty in your choice.

At Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith, P.A., we pride ourselves in our professionalism, attention to detail, and selection of highly qualified attorneys. We have a proven track record with personal injury cases, and a commitment to our clients that is, sadly, uncommon in the legal profession.

If you live in Cape Coral or Lee County, Florida and have been injured through no fault of your own, please contact Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith, P.A. to schedule a free consultation with one of our courteous, professional, experienced attorneys.

Attorney Domenic Valentine of Lusk,Drasites, Tolisano & Smith P.A. handle your case when involved in a personal injury. He has a vast knowledge and understands what you are going through. The following information is a brief overview of how we can help you and your family during a car accident or personal injury.

During our representation, we request information and records from your insurance company, the “at fault's” insurance company and the doctors you have already treated with and those you are currently treating with due to the accident. We request all medical records and bills such as Hospital Emergency Room visit, Ambulance, Radiologists, etc. We also assist you in recovering lost wages from your Auto Insurance PIP carrier (for motor vehicle accidents only).

Once your doctor tells you that he is done treating you and have reached MMI (maximum medical improvement) your case is ready to be reviewed in preparation of a demand. We will write a letter to the insurance company demanding payment for the injuries you sustained due to the motor vehicle accident and provide them with all the records we have gathered to prove our claim on your behalf. That is why it is very important that clients continue treatment with their doctor until he/she discharges you. If you refuse treatment this can greatly effect the outcome of your case.

This is not a fast or easy process. Also, please be aware that the “at fault” party's insurance company will not make any payments on your case until settlement. A premature settlement of your case is not in your best interest. Remember that once an offer to settle is accepted by you, you can not “go back” and negotiate again. This is why we make sure that every medical record is carefully reviewed and why we wait until we have a complete “picture” of the extent of your injury before we send the demand package.




Domenic J. Valentine

Here is an example from Attorney, Matthew Toll of what is the standard used by the Court if you need to relocate away from Florida with small children. This is always a very stressful time for both parents and at Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith P.A. we will make sure you understand all your rights. Divorce, Child Support and Relocation is what we handle each and every day. We can guide you to help in this matter in understanding the law.

FINAL JUDGMENT PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL RELOCATION
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on XXXX, 2010 on the Former Wife’s Motion to Relocate and the Court having reviewed the Court file and the relevant pleadings, having heard argument by counsel for the respective parties, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. The Motion to Relocate is GRANTED.
2. JURISDICTION. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.
3. FINAL JUDGMENT. A Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (hereafter
referred to as "the Final Judgment") was entered on July 24, 2007, Subsequent to the
issuance of the Final Judgment, the Former Wife filed a Supplemental Petition for Modification and a Motion to Relocate, both requesting to relocate to South Carolina with the parties’ minor children, XX & XXX
4. PARENTAL RELOCATION. Parental relocation with minor children is governed by Florida Statute 61.13001.
a. The Former Wife has complied with the requirements of Florida Statute 61.13001(3) by serving a Notice of Intent to Relocate upon the Former Husband prior to the filing of her Motion to Relocate with the Court. Since the Former Husband objected on a timely basis, the Former Wife was required to obtain Court approval to relocate.
b. The Former Wife’s Notice of Intent to Relocate and Motion to Relocate comply with the requirements of Florida Statute 61.13001(3).
5. CONTESTED PROCEEDINGS. In the event that the issue of the proposed relocation becomes contested, the burden of proof is on the party seeking the relocation. Pursuant to Florida Statute 61.13001(8), the party seeking the relocation such show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be in the best interest of the minor children for the relocation to occur. This Court finds that the Former Wife has met this burden.
6. FACTORS UTILIZED IN DETERMINING WHETHER RELOCATION IS IN BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN. In determining whether to allow the proposed relocation, the Court considered the following factors as enumerated in Florida Statute 61.13001(7). a. The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the children’s relationships with the parent or other person proposing to relocate with the children and with the non-relocating parent, other persons, siblings, half-siblings, and other significant persons in the lives of the children.
This factor favors relocation. The testimony of the parties was undisputed that both before and after the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, that XX & XXX (hereafter referred to as "the children") primarily lived with the Former Wife and the evidence supports the conclusion that Former Wife will have substantial familial support in South Carolina.
b. The age and developmental stage of the children, the needs of the children, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the physical, educational, and emotional development of the children, taking into consideration any special needs of the children.
This factor favors relocation. While both are old enough to have developed friendships in the area and to understand what it means to move, there was no evidence presented that would indicate that there would be any developmental problems associated with a move to South Carolina. The testimony was not disputed that Former Wife has already located schools in South Carolina and has ensured that both children would be able to matriculate immediately. There was evidence
presented, albeit disputed, that the Former Wife has sought treatment for XXX medical needs (ADD) while the Former Husband has allegedly failed to cooperate. To the extent that the children have any special needs, there is little doubt that the Former Wife will do whatever is necessary to protect the children.
c. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent or other person and the children through substitute arrangements that take into consideration the logistics of contact, access, and time-sharing, as well as the financial circumstances of the parties; whether those factors are sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the children and the non-relocating parent or other person; and the likelihood of compliance with the substitute arrangements by the relocating parent or other person once he or she is out of the jurisdiction of the Court.
This factor favors neither party. The Former Wife has proposed that in the event of relocation, that the Former Husband be permitted a minimum of one (1) weekend every other month with the children, as well as the even division of holidays, and two (2) weeks of uninterrupted visitation during the summer. The Former Wife has proposed that the costs of travel associated with such visitation be equally divided between the parties, and that the parties could establish a reasonable schedule for phone contact. Regardless of the Former Wife’s personal feelings about the Former Husband, she has testified that she will do everything in her power to preserve a loving and meaningful relationship between the children and the Former Husband.
d. The preferences of the children, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the children.
This factor favors neither party. The Former Wife testified that she has not discussed the proposed move with the children in a desire to avoid their emotional entanglement in these proceedings. The Former Husband presented no evidence as to the preferences of the children.
e. Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent or other person seeking the relocation and the children, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Wife has testified that her career
prospects as a XXX are limited in Lee County as a result of the current market. On the other hand, the Former Wife presented evidence of a job opportunity in South Carolina as an administrative assistant with XXX South Carolina. While the Former Wife’s testimony that the job appeared to be available upon her move and that the pay would be sufficient "to live comfortably" was uncontroverted. The Former Wife has her parents and grandparents as a safety net in South Carolina.
The testimony of the Former Wife and her father established that if the relocation was granted, that the children would be able to move into the home of the maternal grandparents of the children in South Carolina. The testimony was undisputed that said home is approximately XXX square feet and that each child would have his own bedroom. Given the relative apparent financial strength of the Former Wife’s household in Lee County and the household of the Former Wife’s parents in South Carolina, it appears that the children will have more resources available to them in South Carolina.
f. The reasons each parent or other person is seeking or opposing the relocation.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Wife has sought to move because of the need to earn a living, the need to have a safety net of family, and because of the Former Husband’s current propensity to commit violent acts and to alienate her from her children. The Former Husband has objected to the relocation "...due to interference in the current court ordered visitation schedule..." Other than citing to this fact (any relocation will cause the visitation schedule to change), the Former Husband has listed no actual reason why the relocation would not be in the best interest of the children.
g. The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent or other person and whether the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent or other person seeking relocation of the children.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Wife has testified that her career prospects as a XXX are limited in Lee County as a result of the current market. The job prospects does not appear very strong, at least in the short-term. On the other hand, the Former Wife presented evidence of a job opportunity in South Carolina as an administrative assistant with XXX, South Carolina. While the Former Husband correctly pointed out that the Former Wife’s testimony that the job appeared to be available upon her move and that the pay would be sufficient "to live comfortably" was uncontroverted.
h. That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the parent or other person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and marital property and marital debt obligations.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Husband is currently on the Pay-Or-Appear program because of his child support arrearage. There is currently an arrearage of approximately $XXXX at this time. In addition to the child support arrearage, there was evidence presented that the Former Husband has failed to comply with the Court’s edicts regarding his marital debt obligations in the past. For example, the Former Husband did not convey his interest in the former marital home to the Former Wife as required by the Order on Report of Magistrate entered by this Court on July 9, 2009.
Evidence was also presented at trial of at least four (4) separate civil lawsuits
associated with unpaid credit card obligations are pending against the Former Husband. Two final judgments have been entered. The Former Husband has made no efforts to satisfy these debts or even to defend against these lawsuits.
i. The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent or other person if the relocation occurs.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Wife has testified that her career
prospects as a XXX are limited in Lee County as a result of the current market. The job prospects does not appear very strong, at least in the short-term. On the other hand, the Former Wife presented evidence of a job opportunity in South Carolina as an administrative assistant XX, South Carolina.
j. A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or which meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.
This factor favors relocation. The Former Husband has admitted that he has a history of alcoholism. He has been arrested for a DUI since the divorce trial.
Furthermore, a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence was entered against the Former Husband in favor of XX & XX associated with an alleged attack in 2009. At trial, XX described a brutal attack involving kicking, punching, the destruction of property, the use of profane language, the excessive abuse of alcohol, and most significantly, the threat to throw a defenseless one-year child into a canal by the Former Husband.
The Court also heard testimony about the alleged throwing of furniture and
the smashing of a telephone by the Former Husband. A criminal trial has been scheduled in 2010, and the Former Husband openly acknowledged the possibility of jail time.
7. RELOCATION GRANTED. The Former Wife has the right to relocate to South Carolina with XX & XXX.
8. NEW VISITATION SCHEDULE. The Former Husband shall be permitted a minimum of one (1) weekend every other month with the children, as well as the even division of holidays, and two (2) weeks of uninterrupted visitation during the summer. This schedule shall supersede any prior schedules established by the Court.
9. TELEPHONIC CONTACT. The Former Husband shall be entitled to a minimum of twenty (20) minutes of telephonic contact with the minor children three (3) times per week.
10. DIVISION OF EXPENSES. The parties shall equally divide the travel costs associated with the Former Husband’s visitation with the children.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, this .
______________________________________
HONORABLE XXX
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Pursuant to Rule 1.080, Service
of the foregoing has been made
this _____ day of _________________
, upon:
Matthew Toll, Esq.

Unfortuntely horrible things happen with sexual predators in every state and city.
Below is a letter detailing our response to an attorney representing a sexual
predator in a home along with a divorce. This is why you need an attorney with experience to guide you like Attorney, Matthew Toll at Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano &
Smith. P.A. Please be advised that this office represents the interests of XXXXX. I am in receipt of your Verified Petition for Domestication and your Supplemental Petition for Modification. I have prepared the appropriate responses and my client will be filing her own Supplemental Petition. I do not contest the domestication. I also do not contest the need to update your client’s child support obligation to a level consistent with Florida’s child support guidelines (once I am satisfied that your client has substantiated his current income and that your client is not avoiding income for the purpose of avoiding child support). However, you will need to file a UCCJEA Affidavit to proceed on your Supplemental Petition.
Under ordinary circumstances, my next paragraph would deal with the demands in your Supplemental Petition and seek a way to deal with those demands in manner consistent with the best interest of the children. However, this case is not ordinary. I want you to know that my client has made some extraordinarily severe allegations about your client. Specifically, she has informed me that your client may have sexually molested the parties’daughter. Specifically, the claims are that your client has sodomized XXX, has touched XXX , and has bounced XXX on his lap while XXX was naked. Under these circumstances, it may be necessary to involve the Department of Children and Families and ask the State to adjudicate the children dependent. This may end up as a Chapter 39 proceeding instead of a Chapter 61 case.
My client did not witness these acts. As a result, and as a result of the criminal implications associated with these allegations, I have not specifically listed the allegations in my client’s Counter Supplemental Petition (as family law pleadings are a matter of public record). What I think SHOULD HAPPEN in this case is that your client should agree to meet with a neutral mental health professional and give said professional his version of the events. Said professional would interview your client, my client, and the child, and would try and make an independent assessment of what really happened. After said assessment is made, the parties would agree to abide by the recommendations of the
I would recommend the use of Dr. XXXX to assume this role. Obviously, the way in which I handle this case and the manner in which I advise my client will be strongly correlated to whether or not these allegations can be substantiated.
Please let me know your position with respect to the foregoing.
Sincerely,

Attorney Matthew Toll

Many individuals see an ad from a company that says we can eliminate your debt or I can help you with your "Short Sale". Many of these companies are a scam and its difficult to know who you can trust. If you come and visit one of our attorneys at Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith P.A. you can know that you will receive the most accurate information and we can handle your loan modification from start to finish.
Below is an example of a current letter that Attorney, Matthew Toll wrote to one of these companies. Visit our website for more information and come talk to our attorney today to handle this problem and get it resolved quickly .
Please be advised that this office represents the interest of client XXX. During 2009 my client executed a working agreement with XXXXX company for the purpose of resolving my clients issues with their mortgage obligations associated with real estate property XXX. According to the contract, the "resolutions" allegedly being sought by your company could include, but were not limited to loan or interest rate modifications, deeds in lieu of foreclosure, forbearance agreements, or other mechanisms designed to eliminate my clients inability to maintain the subject property given the existing obligations associated therewith.
My clients complied with all requirements of the contract, including providing you with all "Application Supporting Documents" required by the contract and all other documentation that you requested or that was required by the contract. Your "efforts", to the extent that anything was actually done, accomplished nothing. The subject property is now in foreclosure, and my clients have hired this office to defend the lawsuit. My office is now in the process of negotiating a settlement - the very service that the contract contemplated that your office would provide. In a way, it is probably a positive that your company did nothing, as the assistance of a 3rd party non-lawyer in re-negotiating the terms of a loan likely constitutes the unlicensed practice of law (and at a minimum, would require a mortgage broker license and affiliation with a mortgage broker business).
While I acknowledge that the contract expressly states that there is no guarantee that you could actually accomplish anything, I question the ethics of an entity that extracts money from individuals facing foreclosure up front when there is a virtual certainly that said entity would do nothing in consideration for the compensation. The business model is even more nefarious when one considers that it was designed to extract fees from those who could afford to pay such fees the least. In my professional opinion, your organization's primary focus was racketeering. Unfortunately, when you chose to defraud my clients, you picked the wrong people from whom to lie, cheat and steal.
Notwithstanding the foregoing pursuant to the "Service Fee" section of the contract, my client had the right to request a full refund. In the event that your efforts were unsuccessful. It is no surprise to me that your efforts were unsuccessful, and my clients sent you a writing demanding their refund of XXX amt.
The matter is now in my hands. I will warn you now that the "corporate veil" does not shield owners of a business who deliberately engaged in criminal fraud. As such, demand is hereby made for you to refund my clients their entire amount. Payment may be in a trust account at Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith P.A. and must be received by this office with the next 30 days. If you fail to comply by the terms of this demand, my clients will have no choice but to seek legal redress.
for the readers!
THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE! Attorney Matthew Toll

The answer is NO, the insurance companies only pay the current value (e.g. Kelley Blue Book) of your vehicle. Your vehicle is valued at the condition it was in and mileage is taken into consideration as well. Before settling on an amount with the insurance company, please talk to one of our attorneys at Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith P.A. This is very important if you have a car loan that could result in you being responsible for additional dollars that you were not aware of.