ELIZABETH CABRERA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY J. CABRERA, JR., 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.
The husband is to pay all reasonable household utility expenses for the marital home. The trial court retains jurisdiction to consider modification of child support.
In a prior appeal, the wife was granted exclusive occupancy of the marital home. The wife is unemployed and unable to pay household utility expenses, …
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 Continuing Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the first appearance of this dissolution of a marriage case, Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we held that the wife was entitled to exclusive occupancy of the marital home for herself and the minor child until she remarried or the child was no longer dependent.
On the question presented this time we hold that the husband is to pay all reasonable household utility expenses. See Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (parent’s income is dominant factor to be considered in determining amount of financial duty to support child); Page v. Page, 371 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (prime criteria by which to measure child support is child’s needs and parents’ ability to pay); Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (evidence of parents’ respective financial positions and the child’s needs provide basis for court’s award of child support). The record reflects that Mrs. Cabrera, who did not work during the marriage and is unemployed because of a present lack of marketable skills, is not financially able to pay the expenses. Mr. Cabrera owns a controlling interest in a general contracting corporation and has the present ability to provide utilities for the home. See Cabrera.
Our implicit affirmance of the child support award in the first appeal does not by the law of the case doctrine, preclude the trial court’s consideration of that matter on new motions. McKenna v. McKenna, 220 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (with respect to provisions in dissolution decree regarding child's welfare, trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to consider, upon due application, the need for modification where the moving party shows a change of circumstances).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coppock v. Carlson, 547 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…s necessary to consider the conflicts between experts and resolve the same. The trial court’s judgment should be upheld if it is supported by substantial, competent evidence. See In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1971); Gegen v. Leary, 503 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The record contains more than sufficient testimony supporting the trial court’s determination. For that reason, I would affirm.…
-
Lerner v. Brin, 608 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…re supported by competent and substantial evidence. Although one may have rachmones1 for appellant, the trial court’s findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence, and as such, will not be disturbed on appeal. See Gegen v. Learey, 503 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA1987); In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1971). Affirmed. . Yiddish. Rachmones: Pity, mercy, compassion. F. Kogos, Dictionary of Yiddish Slang and Idioms (Castlebooks 1967).…
Authorities Cited
- Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Dartha Killingsworth Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- McKENNA v. McKENNA, 220 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Page v. Michel Douglas Page, 371 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)