DAVID DEAN FLEISCHFRESSER, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN ACCURSIO, A/K/A SUSAN FLEISCHFRESSER, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred by entering a temporary alimony and support order without making required findings of need and ability to pay, and by failing to apply child support guidelines.
The husband appealed a non-final order requiring him to pay temporary alimony and support to his wife. He argued the order lacked necessary findings a…
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 Need cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Dean Fleischfresser, the husband, appeals from a non-final order requiring him to pay temporary alimony and support to his wife, Susan Accursio, arguing that the trial court erred by entering its order without making the required findings of fact establishing the wife’s need and his ability to pay, and by failing to apply the child support guidelines. We agree and reverse.
The trial court ordered the husband to pay, in addition to expenses which had been paid through the family business, a temporary award that appears to exceed the husband’s ability to pay. If so, the trial court has abused its discretion. See Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Abraham v. Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Further, as the trial court failed to identify which share of the award was for child support,1 we cannot determine whether the temporary child support portion of the award is appropriate in relation to the child support guidelines. See Burkhart v. Burkhart, 620 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(noting that child support guidelines are applicable to temporary child support awards); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(same). It does not appear on this record that the trial court gave any consideration to the requirements of the child support guidelines.
We reverse the order in its entirety and remand for a complete reconsideration of the issues of child support and temporary alimony, to include, inter alia, specific findings regarding the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay. If the trial court finds the temporary awards should have been set at a lower amount, the husband shall receive retroactive credit.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. An undifferentiated (combined) award of alimony and support was ordered by the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regalado Lopez v. Regalado, 257 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Gonzalez v. Aurora Gonzalez, 834 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ted by the record and that the order is sufficiently specific for purposes of review here. See Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The appellant argues that reversal is required by the decision in Fleischfresser v. Accursio, 833 So. 2d 803(Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We disagree. In that case, the trial court’s order failed to differentiate between child support and temporary alimony. More particularized findings were needed in order to permit appellate review. There is no child support issue…
-
Greenhouse v. Greenhouse, 913 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…r, in making the undifferentiated award, the trial court did not identify “which share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony.” Blum v. Blum, 769 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see Fleischfresser v. Accursio, 833 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). KLEIN, GROSS, and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garcia v. Sailly Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Burkhart v. Jeri Lynn Burkhart, 620 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Barth Satuloff v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Abraham v. Sherrie Lleo Abraham, 700 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)