<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mark Lang & Associates Blog</title><link>http://www.langlaw.net/</link><description>This is the Mark Lang & Associates Blog</description><copyright>Copyright (c) 2026 </copyright><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:42:42 EST</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:42:42 EST</lastBuildDate><ttl>5</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[ No Set-Off for Your Own Negligence ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>No Set-Off for Your Own Negligence.&nbsp; That is what the Florida Supreme Court said December 14, 2017, in a tobacco case, Schoff v. R.J. Reynolds.&nbsp; The cigarette company said the smoker's recovery should be diminished because of his own fault, i.e. he knew smoking causes cancer.&nbsp; The Florida Supreme Court said, "no, not where the wrong doer did what he did intentionally."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, if someone hurts you on purpose, or knowing it is likely you will be hurt, there is no set-off for your own failure to use reasonable care....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/no-set-off-for-your-own-negligence.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/no-set-off-for-your-own-negligence.html</guid><pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Right to Confidentiality ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>The Florida Supreme Court finally affirmed a patient's right to confidentiality, even in a medical malpractice scenario.&nbsp; The Florida Legislature had passed a law allowing insurance defense attorneys to speak directly to a patient's doctors, without the patient's lawyer being present or even knowing about it.&nbsp; Our Supreme Court ruled Nay Nay Nay! Declaring that part of the statute unconstitutional, the Court reaffirmed that a citizen's right to privacy trumps all. Weaver v. Myers, decided November 9, 2017....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/right-to-confidentiality.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/right-to-confidentiality.html</guid><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Importance of Providing Notice in Probate Cases ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>For years the district courts were split in determining whether an individual or entity should be notified of a pending estate.&nbsp;For example, in Morgenthau v. Andzel, and in Lubee v. Adams, the First District Court of Appeal and the Second District Court of Appeal both agreed and held that even if a reasonable ascertainable creditor was not served with a copy of a Notice of Creditors, then that creditor would be required to file a claim within three months after the first publication of Notice to Creditors, unless that creditor filed a motion for extension of time.&nbsp;On the other hand, in Golden v....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/importance-of-providing-notice-in-probate-cases.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/importance-of-providing-notice-in-probate-cases.html</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Go Hence Without Day ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p> The cogent explanation of the phrase &#8220;go hence without day&#8221; has been used by many attorneys throughout their legal careers, but few attorneys know the meaning of this historic phrase. In Ball v. Genesis Outsourcing Solutions, LLC, the 3rd District Court of Appeal graciously provided the following to resolve the mystery of the historic phrase: [The] last expression, &#8220;go hence without day&#8221; is properly used only in a judgment for a defendant; it should not be used in a judgment for a plaintiff.  A little history explains why....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/go-hence-without-day.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/go-hence-without-day.html</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Imputed Income ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>The concept behind imputing income is to require those who are able to do so, to support or contribute to the support of those for whom they are responsible.  During a divorce or post dissolution matter, each party&#8217;s income may become an issue.  Often, one party will claim the other is intentionally not reaching their full earning capability or is receiving compensation from their employer in other forms so as to lower their adjusted gross income; all in an effort to avoid paying a certain amount of child support, alimony or attorney&#8217;s fees.  This argument, along with the properly presented facts and evidence, may result in the imputation of income to one party by the court....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/imputed-income.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/imputed-income.html</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Co-Mingled Assets ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p> When are personal assets joint assets? This question pervades initial conferences for divorce clients meeting with a lawyer, and throughout the divorce litigation process, and still during trial....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/co-mingled-assets.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/co-mingled-assets.html</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Common Florida Divorce Questions ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p> At Mark Lang &amp; Associates, we handle many different types of family and divorce law cases. This can include anything from a high asset divorce, to child custody. Clients who come to us to manage marital and family law issues know that we will work diligently on their behalf, with the goal of improving their emotional, legal and financial well-being. 
That is why we want to provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions regarding divorce law....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/common-florida-divorce-questions.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/common-florida-divorce-questions.html</guid><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ What Kind of Lawyer is Mark Lang? ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>Mark Lang is a civil litigation attorney practicing in Florida.
He received his B.A. in religion from Drew University in New Jersey in 1974,
and his J.D. from the University of Florida in 1977. He has also studied at
Fairleigh Dickinson University and Oxford University / Lincoln College in
Oxford, England.&nbsp;Mark Lang
&amp; AssociatesToday Mark Lang is the President and Senior Partner of his own
law firm in Winter Park, Florida, Mark Lang &amp; Associates....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/what-kind-of-lawyer-is-mark-lang.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/what-kind-of-lawyer-is-mark-lang.html</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ Non-Modifiable Alimony ]]> </title><description><![CDATA[ <p>If you call alimony "non-modifiable" in a Marital Settlement Agreement, it is; even if you remarry. 
A new case, Herbst v Herbst, decided October 1, in a Florida appellate court, says so. In that case, the former wife remarried and the former husband sought to terminate alimony based on that re-marriage. 
&nbsp; 
Ordinarily, if there is no agreement, or the agreement is silent as to the issue of modifiability, then the Common Law inherited from England says that alimony is automatically terminated if the former wife remarries. But in the Herbst case, the parties' settlement agreement only said that the alimony was non-modifiable....</p> ]]> </description><link>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/non-modifiable-alimony.html</link><guid>http://www.langlaw.net/blog/posts/non-modifiable-alimony.html</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>