MICHAEL MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
BLAIR A. MILLER, 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's award of temporary support and attorney's fees was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding temporary support and attorney's fees that exceed a party's ability to pay.
[2] Temporary support and expense awards that consume nearly all of a party's net monthly income may place an undue burden on that 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 intelligenceThe trial court ordered the husband to pay temporary support and expenses that consumed nearly all of his net monthly income, and also awarded substan…
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Miller, the husband, appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order awarding temporary support and attorney’s fees to his wife, Blair Miller, as excessive. We agree and reverse.
Based on the testimony as presented at the wife’s temporary relief hearing, the court found that the husband has a net monthly income of $11,666. It ordered him to pay $2,580 per month in basic support to the wife and, on top of that amount, also required that he pay her monthly expenses totalling approximately $9,000. It further ordered that he pay her $30,000 as temporary attorney’s fees and $10,000 as temporary costs.
The basic temporary support and expense awards together constitute nearly all of the husband’s net monthly income. As such, we find that the present award places an undue burden on the husband based on the record evidence and findings as to his ability to pay. See Benenfeld v. Benenfeld, 705 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability); Chereskin v. Chereskin, 665 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(reversing final judgment which required payments by husband for support that left him only $250 per month for his expenses); Ginsburg v. Ginsburg, 610 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
With respect to the award of temporary attorney’s fees and costs, yet again we unfortunately see a case where the attorney’s fees sought to be imposed are clearly disproportionate to the complexities of the case and the financial resources of the parties. See Woodward v. Berkery, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D393 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 4, 1998). Here, since the total amount ordered exceeds the husband’s ability to pay, and would require him to deplete virtually all of his assets and other financial resources to meet this obligation, we find that the present award constitutes an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the order in its entirety and remand to the trial court for a total reconsideration of the temporary support issues raised.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isadore Philips Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t to the wife without regard to his ability to pay. We agree, because a trial court cannot enter a temporary support award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income. See Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (awards that provided the wife with nearly all of the husband’s income were an undue burden); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (award that left the husband with fifty dollars per week to live on was error).…
-
DE Luca v. de Luca, 722 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…but nevertheless determined that the husband had the ability to pay $3,500 in combined temporary child support and alimony. We find that this combined award exceeding his monthly net income was clearly an abuse of discretion. See, Miller v. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Abraham v. Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Of the $3,500 combined award, $1,090 was temporary child support and $2,410 was temporary alimony. We find that the trial court properly followed the child support guidelin…
-
Trainor v. Trainor, 199 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…010) (reversing temporary relief order because “the husband’s financial obligations under the temporary support order consume his income to the extent that he is left with little or nothing for his own reasonable living expenses”); Miller v. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419, 419-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (award that provided party with nearly all of the other party’s income was an undue burden and an abuse of the trial court’s discretion); Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (court cannot authorize suppo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Irwin Barry Ginsburg v. Ginsburg, 610 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Chereskin v. Chereskin, 665 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- LAW Offs. OF Sharon P. Talbot, P.A. v. Savoie, 705 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)