JON LARSEN SHUDLICK, APPELLANT,
v.
PAMELA J. SHUDLICK, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's awards, finding them supported by competent substantial evidence and within the trial court's discretion.
[1] Appellate courts will affirm trial court awards when supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the informed discretion of the trial court when factual issues are involved.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a dissolution of a seventeen-year marriage, the former husband appealed awards of permanent alimony, child support, denial of a special equi…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm, and hold that the awards by the trial court challenged on appeal by the former husband are supported by competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing. Accordingly, we cannot substitute our judgment for the informed discretion of the trial court. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983).
On appeal the former husband asserts error in:
1. The award and amount of permanent alimony;
2. the amount of child support;
3. the failure of the trial court to grant the husband a special equity in the parties’ property located in Wisconsin;
4. the award of costs and attorney’s fees to the wife.
The record reflects a lengthy marriage of approximately seventeen years producing a child who was eight years old at the time of the dissolution. The wife, at the husband’s insistence, had not worked during the last ten years of the marriage. There is evidence of the needs of the wife and the child that support the awards of alimony and child support. More importantly, there is evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the husband’s average annual income is at least $90,000. In several of the years immediately preceding the separation of the parties, the husband’s income exceeded $100,000. This evidence appears to be ignored by the former husband in his contentions about support and alimony.
The special equity issue fails simply because the evidence was in conflict, and the trial court ultimately awarded all of this real property to the husband in the division of assets. Finally, the fee award is supported by the evidence, and the amount thereof is not out of line with the husband's own legal expenses.
When considering factual issues resolved by the trial court, as are all of the issues raised herein, we must construe the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party. In so doing here, it is apparent there is an adequate evidentiary and legal basis for each of the trial court’s decisions challenged on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ„ and BRESCHER, GEORGE A., Associate Judge, concur.