FREDERICK S. COUPLES, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH M. COUPLES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in part and reverse in part. We reverse that part of the trial court’s order awarding the appellee “an additional $25,000 a month” beyond the other amounts allowed for temporary support, for the wife to spend “however she desires.” Cf. Wenzel v. Wenzel, 512 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA1987). We affirm the balance of the temporary support order. We also affirm the order for temporary attorney’s fees, suit money and costs. Our affirmance of these awards, however, is without prejudice to the appellant to subsequently challenge any claims for fees and costs alleged to have been actually incurred. The appellee retains the burden on this issue, regardless of the trial court’s tentative allowance of fees, suit money and costs based on estimated future expenditures.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friedman v. Friedman, 844 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…$39,000 might be spent on additional clothes or jewelry shows that the $50,000 monthly amount had no relation to the wife’s needs as determined from the marital standard of living. It is similar to the award we disapproved of in Couples v. Couples, 623 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), of an additional $25,000 per month in monies to the wife to spend “however she desires.” The wife contends that the court intended any remaining funds be used to pay her attorney’s fees. However, the trial court did not re…
Authorities Cited
- Wenzel v. Wenzel, 512 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)