JEFFREY NEIL COHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RONI FRIEDMAN COHEN, 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.
Husband appeals a non-final order awarding temporary relief in a dissolution of marriage action. The trial court awarded the wife temporary support, exclusive use of certain marital assets, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The criteria for temporary alimony are the same as for permanent alimony—the need of the spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay—and trial judges have very broad discretion in these matters that appellate courts are reluctant to disturb.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in awarding temporary alimony, and appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with such awards absent compelling circumstances.
[2] The criteria for an award of temporary alimony are the need of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 highly deferential standard of review for temporary alimony orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage action, the trial court found the wife was in need of temporary support and the husband had the ability to pay. The court…
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
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Neil Cohen (husband) appeals a non-final order on temporary relief in his dissolution of marriage action against Roni Friedman Cohen (wife). We affirm.
The trial court found that the wife was in need of temporary support and the husband had the ability to pay. The trial court ordered the husband to: (1) pay the wife $3,500 per month in temporary support, (2) pay other expenses totaling $11,640 per month, (3) reinstate the credit cards that the wife previously used and pay the charges, (4) maintain health insurance for the wife’s benefit and pay the cost of the wife’s prescriptions, (5) maintain all insurances currently in effect, and (6) pay $100,000 in attorney’s fees to the wife’s counsel. Moreover, the wife received exclusive use and possession of the marital residence in Florida, continued access to and use of the parties’ Maine warehouse, and exclusive use and possession of a 2003 Lincoln Navigator. The husband received exclusive use and possession of the parties’ Maine residence.
In Stern v. Stern, 907 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), this court explained:
The criteria for an award of temporary alimony are the same as for permanent alimony, namely, the need of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay. Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In considering temporary alimony, it is well-settled 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.” Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Again, in Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), we reiterated this standard, stating “[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.”
Stern, 907 So. 2d at 702. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roni Friedman Cohen v. Cohen, 39 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…4) maintain all insurances in effect at the time of the order, and (5) pay $100,000 in attorney’s fees to the wife’s lawyer. The order gave the wife exclusive use of the marital home. The husband appealed and this court affirmed. See Cohen v. Cohen, 955 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The wife changed attorneys in the middle of the litigation. Her second attorney filed companion motions to amend the counterpetition and for a continuance of the final hearing. The wife’s initial counterpetition indicated that…
Authorities Cited
- Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Lane Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Stern v. Stern, 907 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)