EDWARD T. WILDER, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA M. WILDER, 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 is an abuse of discretion if it consumes nearly all of a party's income, leaving them with little for living expenses.
The husband challenged a temporary support order, arguing it was excessive and contained an error in child support calculation. The appellate court ag…
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case, the husband challenges a temporary support order, arguing that it is excessive and that there is an error in the child support calculation. We agree that the award is excessive and the wife has conceded the alleged error in the child support calculation.
“[Temporary relief awards are among the areas where trial judges have the broadest discretion” and an appellate court will not reverse such an order in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). It is an abuse of discretion, however, for a trial court to enter a temporary support order that “exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income.” Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So.2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing temporary support order that left husband with only $800 per month for own living expenses); see also Williams v. Williams, 10 So.3d 651, 652-53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing award of temporary child support and “in-kind” alimony that consumed ninety-seven percent of husband’s monthly income). That is the case here as 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.1 The or*962der appealed is thus reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trainor v. Trainor, 199 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…g with her parents. A trial court abuses- its discretion in making an award of temporary alimony that “exceeds or nearly exhausts” the pay- or spouse’s income. Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Wilder v. Wilder, 42 So. 3d 961, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (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”…
-
Meldrum v. Bergamo-Meldrum, 281 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…t the court erred when it failed to make a finding of the Husband’s net income in the temporary relief order. 2 A court errs when it enters a temporary support order that “exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income.” Wilder v. Wilder, 42 So. 3d 961, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). To make that determination, the law requires the court to make a finding of net income when fashioning temporary relief. See Elias v. Elias, 168 So…
-
Mejia v. Mejia (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Dwyn Daniels Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Isadore Philips Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Williams v. Dania Suzette Williams, 10 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)