DAVID M. REILLY, APPELLANT,
v.
MELANIE R. REILLY, 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 a temporary support order requiring a husband to pay household expenses in addition to a weekly support payment was not supported by the evidence.
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband appealed a nonfinal order awarding the wife temporary support and attorney's fees. Both parties t…
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 And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, David M. Reilly (the husband) appeals from the nonfinal order awarding Melanie R. Reilly (the wife) temporary support and attorney’s fees. We find merit only in his argument that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay various household expenses in addition to a weekly support payment of $1500 because the award is not supported by the evidence.
Although temporary awards of support and alimony are discretionary, they must be supported by evidence showing the one spouse’s need for support and the other spouse’s ability to pay. Breitenbach v. Breitenbach, 838 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “ ‘[A]ppellate courts are reluctant to disturb the judgment of a trial court in respect to financial awards in marital cases,’ but such an award will be reversed where it 'is not supported by substantial, competent evidence.’ ” Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So.2d 1048, 1050-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)).
Both the husband and the wife testified that during the marriage the wife paid the household expenses such as the electric, cable, telephone, gas and water bills, lawn care, pool maintenance, etc., out of the weekly allowance that she received from the husband. Nevertheless, the temporary support order required the husband to pay the wife $1500 per week and “any and all normal and customary expenses associated with the marital home.” We agree with the husband the award was contrary to the evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse the subject portion of the temporary support order; we affirm the order in all other respects.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pothen Jacob v. Lalitha Jacob, 26 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep, the child support guidelines worksheet demonstrates that the trial court failed to factor in those contributions in determining the award. Such is an abuse of discretion. See Reilly [*13] V. Reilly, 16 So. 3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the order determining the Wife’s entitlement to temporary support. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the amount, factoring the Husband’s payments for the marital…
Authorities Cited
- Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Carey v. State, 838 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Breitenbach v. Breitenbach, 838 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)