ALBERT PEDRAJA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSE HELEN GARCIA, 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 a dissolution of a short six-month marriage, the appellate court affirmed an award of temporary attorney's fees and suit money but reversed and remanded the temporary alimony award because it exceeded the amount the wife actually requested and substantially exceeded her documented monthly deficit.
The court affirmed the award of temporary attorney's fees and suit money under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, as proper under the need and ability to pay standard. However, the court reversed and remanded the temporary alimony award because the $3,000 monthly amount awarded exceeded both the amount sought by the wife and her documented monthly deficit of approximately $1,000.
[1] Trial judges possess broad discretion in awarding temporary relief in dissolution proceedings, and appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with such awards.
[2] A temporary alimony award may be reversed and remanded if the amount awarded exceeds the amount actually sought by the requesting party.
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“temporary relief awards are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion, which appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere with except under the most compelling of circumstances”
Establishes the high standard of review for temporary relief awards and the broad discretion afforded trial judges in these matters
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 married on July 1, 1994, and the wife filed for dissolution in January 1995. No children were involved. The trial court awarded the w…
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 Temporary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant husband seeks review of an order granting appellee wife temporary alimony and temporary attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm as to suit money and attorney’s fees but reverse and remand as to the award of temporary alimony because the amount awarded exceeds the amount actually sought by the wife.
This case involves the dissolution of a six (6) month marriage with no children. The parties were married to each other on July 1, 1994, and wife filed a petition for dissolution in January 1995. Pursuant to wife’s motion for temporary relief and hearing thereon, the court entered an order on April 5, 1995, awarding appellee $3,000.00 per month temporary alimony nunc pro tunc to January 9, 1995, and $7,000.00 temporary attorney’s fees and suit money to be paid forthwith.
It is a very basic appellate truism that temporary relief awards are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion, which appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere with except under the most compelling of circumstances. Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As stated in Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), “[t]he trial court has broad discretion in deciding matters of temporary alimony ... and we will not disturb that discretion in the absence of a showing that no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.”
In this case, based on the wife’s financial affidavit, adjusted for the omitted car allowance, there is a monthly deficit of approximately $1,000.00, substantially less than the $3,000.00 awarded monthly by the trial court. Predicated on the appellee wife’s documented deficit, we are compelled to reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to reconsider its temporary alimony award in light of appellee wife’s acknowledged monthly deficit exclusive of non-essential debt. Predicated on the foregoing we need not address husband’s ability to pay.
As to the issue of suit money and attorney’s fees, the purpose of section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1989), which authorizes interim awards of suit money, is to insure that both parties to a dissolution proceeding have similar access to counsel and can accordingly contest the proceeding on a nearly equal footing. See Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla.1988). The appropriate inquiry — need and ability to pay— is the same whether the fees requested are temporary or final. A determination on any other basis would constitute an abuse of discretion. 519 So. 2d at 622.
We find no error in the court’s award of attorney’s fees and suit money and affirm.
Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part with directions.
GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Driscoll v. Celeste Driscoll, 915 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ionary. Breitenbach v. Breitenbach, 838 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In fact, temporary awards are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion and where appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere. Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, temporary alimony awards must be supported by competent, substantial evidence that demonstrates the need for support and the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Breitenbach, 838 So. 2d at 1267. The trial court began its an…
-
Blum v. Blum, 769 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…d be responsible for half of all medical bills for the parties’ minor child pending the final dissolution order. Even though temporary relief awards are among those areas in which the trial courts have the greatest discretion, see Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we find several problems with the temporary support order in this case. First, it is evident that some amount of temporary support, both alimony and child suppor…
-
Mullins v. Mullins, 799 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…strictly construed. Temporary relief awards “are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion, which appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere with except under the most compelling of circumstances.” Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Temporary relief hearings are abbreviated and the relief granted is not final, so the trial judge may revisit temporary relief matters in the final judgment. To allow loose and sloppy compliance with the rule’s time require…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1988)
- Dwyn Daniels Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)