KATHY LORD, APPELLANT,
v.
CARTER LORD, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the former wife challenged the trial court's custody award, reduction of lump sum alimony, and inadequacy of rehabilitative alimony. The appellate court affirmed the custody determination but reversed the reduction of lump sum alimony, finding the trial court abused its discretion by penalizing the wife for pursuing child abuse allegations.
The court affirmed the custody award, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court reversed the reduction of lump sum alimony, finding the trial court abused its discretion by penalizing the former wife for pursuing legitimate child abuse concerns. The court affirmed the denial of additional attorney's fees because the former wife presented no evidence of entitlement to additional funds. The case was remanded for reevaluation of the lump sum award and rehabilitative alimony.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it penalizes a party for diligently pursuing allegations of child abuse.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding custody when the record provides no basis to disturb the decision.
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“Our review of the record discloses no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for discretionary custody decisions and the court's affirmance of the custody award.
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 were former spouses in a dissolution matter involving custody of two minor children. During the proceedings, the former wife raised allega…
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 Child Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The former wife challenges several aspects of the final judgment entered in this dissolution matter. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The former wife challenges the award of custody of the parties’ two minor children to the former husband. Our review of the record discloses no basis upon which to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Sherrod v. Sherrod, 448 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Her remaining issues on appeal focus mainly on the trial court’s determination to decrease the lump sum award and the inadequacy of the $500 per month rehabilitative alimony.
We disagree with the trial court’s reduction, in an amount unascertainable from the final judgment, of the lump sum alimony. That determination was grounded upon the former wife’s allegations of child abuse which the trial court perceived as financially burdening the former husband. The former husband was required to employ experts to refute the former wife’s claims of child abuse. The record, however, supports the view that the former wife undertook only those actions that any parent would take in the face of a sincere belief that her child had suffered abuse. The record points up that the former wife did not want to believe that the former husband was engaging in such conduct. The fact that this matter ultimately ended up in the hands of law enforcement was the result of the examining physician’s actions, not the former wife’s. We have concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in penalizing the former wife for diligently pursuing the possibility of child abuse. Upon remand, the trial court is to reevaluate the lump sum award and the rehabilitative alimony in the light of our comments. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees. The former husband paid the former wife $7,500 for attorney’s fees during the dissolution. At the final hearing, however, the former wife presented absolutely no evidence concerning her entitlement to additional funds for attorney’s fees. Prevatt v. Prevatt, 462 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
This matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Holland, 602 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…992) (age of majority is 21); Kelley v. Ryals Services, Inc., 585 So. 2d 1371 (Ala.1991) (age of majority is 19). . See Askegard v. Askegard, 584 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Bromante v. Bromante, 577 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lord v. Lord, 566 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Pirino v. Pirino, 558 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Lester v. Lester, 547 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
-
Tamre G. Hoover v. Sprecher, 610 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…Judge. The former Wife appealed the orders of the trial court denying her request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The standard of review of an order denying attorney’s fees is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Lord v. Lord, 566 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Because of the lack of an adequate record to review, we have no basis on which to find that the lower tribunal abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions for attor…
Authorities Cited
- Prevatt v. Prevatt, 462 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Sherrod v. Sherrod, 448 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)