JESUS SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MAGALY SUAREZ, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony, child support, lump sum alimony, and attorney's fees, and properly valued the husband's insurance company.
The husband appealed a final judgment of marriage dissolution, challenging awards for alimony, child support, and attorney's fees, as well as the valu…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband Jesus Suarez from a final judgment of marriage dissolution after a non-jury trial. We affirm.
First, we reject the husband’s contention that the trial court’s awards of permanent alimony, child support, lump sum alimony, and attorney’s fees are beyond the financial ability of the husband to pay. The trial court impliedly found in the final judgment that the husband’s net income after taxes was $350,000 a year, which finding is supported by substantial, competent evidence adduced at trial. This income is more than sufficient to pay for the alimony, child support, and attorney’s fee awards in this case; the trial court did not, as urged, abuse its discretion in making these combined awards. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542, 544 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Kozak v. Kozak, 507 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Second, we conclude the balance of the husband’s points do not present reversible error. The trial court properly valued the husband’s insurance company and did not, as urged, fail to take into account the income tax implications involved in the case. See Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1992); Mann v. Mann, 578 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Marcoux v. Marcoux, 475 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1986).
Finally, no reversible error is presented by the cross appeal. Accordingly, the final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…sing its child support award on the finding .that his “net income is $2,500.00 per month[,]” or $30,000 net annually. This finding is not supported by substantial competent evidence introduced at the trial and must be reversed. See Suarez v. Suarez, 627 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The only testimony presented was that the husband had earned $26,500 the previous year and was recently employed in a position which would lead to a maximum of $28,800 gross earnings for the year. Moreover, no evidence was introd…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 475 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Kozak v. Kozak, 507 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Mann v. Sylvia (Sallie) Mann, 578 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)