MARIE RUTH LUSKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL LUSKIN, 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 a dissolution of marriage action, the trial court denied the wife's motion to compel the husband to pay private school tuition and summer camp expenses for their two minor children. The appellate court reversed, holding that temporary support awards should balance the family's standard of living against the payor's ability to pay, rather than limiting support to bare necessities.
The trial court erred in applying a necessities standard to temporary support awards. The correct legal standard requires balancing the family's customary standard of living against the payor's ability to pay. Where the payor has the ability to pay and the expenses are in accordance with the family's standard of living and the children's best interests, such expenses may properly be awarded as support.
[1] Temporary support awards are determined by balancing the parties' standard of living and the ability to pay.
[2] Private school tuition and summer camp expenses may be awarded as temporary support if they align with the family's standard of living and are in the children's best inte…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The proper standard to be applied in awarding temporary support is a balancing of "needs as fixed by the parties' standard of living, on the one hand, and ability to pay, on the other."”
Establishes the correct legal standard for temporary support awards, rejecting a strict necessities test.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties separated in November 1985 and a dissolution of marriage petition followed shortly thereafter. A guardian ad litem recommended that the ch…
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 Standard Of Living cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife in a dissolution of marriage action of the trial court’s non-final order denying her motion to compel the husband to pay private school tuition and summer camp expenses for the parties’ two minor children. We reverse.
The record before us reveals that the parties separated in November 1985, and the wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage a short time later. The parties stipulated to appointment of a guardian ad litem to make recommendations to the court with regard to the children. One of the guardian ad litem’s recommendations was that the children continue to attend private school and summer camp, as they had in past years, in the interest of minimizing the disruption to their lives caused by their parents’ separation.
The trial judge ratified the guardian ad litem’s report, but did not include payment of tuition and camp expenses in his order providing for temporary support for the wife and children. The wife then moved to compel the husband to pay these amounts. The trial judge denied the motion, concluding that notwithstanding his prior ratification of the guardian ad litem’s findings in this regard and the husband's ample ability to pay for private school and summer camp, he could not order payment of expenses which are not necessities. This appeal followed.
We conclude that the trial court’s holding was based upon an erroneous legal premise. The proper standard to be applied in awarding temporary support is a balancing of “needs as fixed by the parties’ standard of living, on the one hand, and ability to pay, on the other.” Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (emphasis added). See also Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Where, as here, the husband has the ability to pay private school tuition and summer camp costs, and these expenses are in accordance with the family’s customary standard of living and are in the children’s best interests, they may properly be awarded as support. See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Ault v. Ault, 431 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hendry v. Hendry, 340 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the wife’s motion to compel and remand for reconsideration of this matter in accordance with the principles set forth herein.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…l parent when that parent has the ability to pay and such expenses are in accordance with the family’s customary standard of living and are in the child’s best interest. Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So. 2d 698, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Luskin v. Luskin, 492 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the court approved private school for children that attended the school during their parents’ marriage and where the guardian ad litem recommended that they continue to attend the private school to minimize the disruption of the…
-
Fields v. Fields, 533 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ing, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $1,000 a week support to the wife. We find that was error for two reasons. First, [*924] from the record it appears as though the court did not apply the appropriate test as stated in Luskin v. Luskin, 492 So. 2d 783, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (quoting Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)) that “[t]he proper standard to be applied in awarding temporary support is a balancing of ‘needs as fixed by the parties’ standard of living, on the one ha…
-
Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…of child support payable by a noncustodial parent where that parent has the ability to pay for private school, and such expenses are in accordance with the family's customary standard of living and are in the child's best interest. Luskin v. Luskin, 492 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (private school tuition payable where children had attended a private school during the parties' marriage and guardian ad litem recommended that children continue to attend private school in order to minimize disruption of their…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hendry v. Hendry, 340 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Ault v. Ault, 431 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)