LANE MITZENMACHER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN MITZENMACHER, 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.
Husband Lane Mitzenmacher appealed a temporary alimony award of $200 per week in a marriage dissolution action. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred in rejecting the general master's findings that the husband had no financial ability to pay temporary alimony based on his net disposable income being entirely consumed by necessary living expenses.
The trial court erred in awarding temporary alimony beyond the husband's financial ability to pay. The general master's findings that the husband's net disposable income of $1,680 per month was entirely consumed by necessary current expenses, with prospective expenses properly excluded, were supported by substantial competent evidence and should have been accepted.
[1] A trial court errs in rejecting a general master's recommendation regarding temporary alimony when the master's findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence.
[2] A general master's report that excludes prospective expenses from a party's present living expenses is legally sound.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 husband has a "net disposable income of $1,680.00 per month, without regard to [his] future need to pay for separate living quarters at some future date," and (2) the husband "reasonably requires the entirety of his net available funds of $1,680.00 per month for his current non-household expenses" so that he has no financial ability to pay temporary alimony”
Core findings by the general master establishing the husband's lack of financial ability to pay temporary alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe general master found that the husband had a net disposable income of $1,680 per month, which was entirely necessary for his current non-household …
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband Lane Mitzenmacher from a temporary alimony award in a marriage dissolution action. Because the general master before whom this matter was heard received substantial, competent evidence to support his findings that (1) the husband has a “net disposable income of $1,680.00 per month, without regard to [his] future need to pay for separate living quarters at some future date,” and (2) the husband “reasonably requires the entirety of his net available funds of $1,680.00 per month for his current non-household expenses” so that he has no financial ability to pay temporary alimony, the trial court erred in rejecting the general master’s recommendation that no temporary alimony be awarded in this case and in awarding $200 a week in temporary alimony.
The trial court reached this result because “[t]he general master erred as a matter of law by taking into account prospective expenses of [the] husband ...the general master’s report, however, clearly reflects that prospective living expenses were expressly excluded from the husband’s present living expenses.
The trial court was, accordingly, in error in rejecting the general master’s recommendation and in awarding temporary alimony which is clearly beyond the financial ability of the husband to pay. Mahan v. Mahan, 88 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1956); Horton v. Horton, 573 So. 2d 423 (Fla.3d DCA 1991); Fields v. Fields, 533 So. 2d 922 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla.4th DCA 1985); McAnespie v. McAnespie, 200 So. 2d 606 (Fla.2d DCA 1967).
The order appealed from awarding temporary alimony is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to deny the wife’s motion for temporary alimony.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lane Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…husband filed an interlocutory appeal of this award to this court. We reversed, holding that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife temporary alimony which was beyond the former husband’s ability to pay. See Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 627 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The record is clear that there was no substantial change in the former husband’s income during the interim period between the temporary support hearing and the final hearing. Indeed, the record reflects that at the time of the f…
Authorities Cited
- McANESPIE v. McANESPIE, 200 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Fields v. Fields, 533 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Mahan v. Mahan, 88 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1956)
- Horton v. Horton, 573 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)