VICTOR RAMON PRIETO, APPELLANT,
v.
DEE ANNE PRIETO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this family law appeal, the former husband challenges a final judgment awarding the former wife the marital home, alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The court largely affirms the trial court's discretionary award but reverses the automatic twenty percent increase in child support scheduled for March 31, 1981, finding such automatic increases improper under Florida law.
The court affirmed the awards of the marital home, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees as within the trial court's discretion, but reversed and remanded the automatic increase in child support, holding that automatic increases in child support awards are improper and any future increase should be considered only upon an appropriate motion for modification.
[1] A trial court should not order automatic increases in child support; any future increase should be considered upon a motion for modification.
[2] A trial court's discretionary ruling should not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable, meaning reasonable minds could differ as to its propriety.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing discretionary trial court orders in family law matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded the former wife: the marital home and furnishings as lump sum alimony; rehabilitative alimony of $50 per week for two years; c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal by the former husband from a final judgment and post-judgment order award to the former wife of the following:
1. The marital home and furnishings as lump sum alimony.
2. Rehabilitative alimony of $50.00 per week for two years.
3. Child support for the parties’ two minor children of $50.00 per week, to be increased to $60.00 per week on March 31, 1981.
4.Attorneys’ fees of $2000.00.
With respect to the automatic increase of child support from $50.00 to $60.00 per week on March 31, 1981, we believe the trial court should not have ordered it. It occurs to us that the increase was to take place about the time the wife’s rehabilitative alimony ceased. Moreover, the increase was not nominal but amounted to twenty per cent for each child. In Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), this court expressly disapproved an automatic five per cent per annum cost-of-living increase in child support. Sub judice the present award of $50.00 per week per child seems reasonable and any increase should be considered in the future upon appropriate motion for modification. Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to that point.
We affirm the remainder of the award upon the following principle recited in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980):
If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)