BRUCE W. MITTAUER, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDY I. MITTAUER, 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 cumulative effect of the awards in the final judgment of dissolution constituted an abuse of discretion, as the husband's economic status was destroyed.
The husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution that awarded permanent alimony, child support, marital property distribution, and attorney's fees…
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
HAZOURI, FREDRICK A., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a Final Judgment of Dissolution awarding to the Wife permanent alimony, child support, distribution of marital property, and attorney’s fees. The Appellant Husband contends that the cumulative effect of the awards was an abuse of discretion. We agree and reverse.
It should be noted at the outset that the trial court has broad discretion and authority to achieve an overall equitable resolution of the issues in marriage dissolution proceedings. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980). However, as this Court stated:
Where the Husband’s income is nearly exhausted on obligations imposed by the final judgment, leaving him with practically no money to support himself, reasonable persons could not differ as to the impropriety of the action taken by the trial court. Traditional alimony, it must be remembered, depends upon the “financial ability of the other spouse to make such payment without substantially endangering his or her own economic status.”
Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(quoting Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201).
In the instant case, as in Gentile, Husband’s economic status is not only endangered, it is destroyed. The record does not support the disparity in the allocation of marital assets, nor does it support the amount awarded for alimony and child support.
We reverse all awards so that upon remand, the trial court can refashion a distribution scheme using both marital property and income to provide for the welfare of all parties.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…t renders the vehicle “in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property.” See, for example, Judge Warner’s dissent from the Fourth District’s affirmance of an order suppressing contraband seized after a traffic stop in State v. Savino, 686 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Judge Warner argued that under Whren the officer had authority to stop the defendants’ car for a violation of section 316.610, based on the officer’s testimony that it would have been difficult to see through the “spider” crack…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)