SIMA SASSEEN, APPELLANT,
v.
BRETT SASSEEN, 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 erred in failing to award the former wife arrearages due from the former husband under a temporary support order.
[1] A trial court errs in failing to award a party arrearages due under a temporary support order when the other party failed to pay those obligations.
[2] A party's uncontroverted testimony regarding expenses paid that were the obligation of the other party under a temporary order must be credited.
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 intelligenceDuring a dissolution action, a temporary order required the husband to pay various expenses including mortgage, utilities, car payments, and private s…
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
The former wife, Sima Sasseen, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to award the former wife arrearag-es due from the former husband under a temporary support order, but . we otherwise affirm.
During the pendency of the dissolution action, the trial court entered a stipulated temporary order under which the former husband was required to pay, inter alia, mortgage payments and other specified obligations related to the marital home such as utilities, car payments and insur-*1282anee for the former wife’s vehicle, private school tuition for the minor children, and unallocated support of $7,500 per month.
The uncontroverted testimony established that the former wife paid $21,-870.631 for expenses that were the former husband’s obligation under the temporary order. Despite demand from the former wife, the former husband failed to pay these due and owing monies. It appears from the record that the trial court was under the misapprehension that the monies claimed by the former wife had been reimbursed by the former husband.2 On remand, the trial court shall require the former husband to pay this arrearage amount.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
COHEN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vaughn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 153 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…in the record, but it does not indicate that the required seal is affixed to the original document. Therefore, we reverse the order denying Vaughn’s motion to quash service of process and remand this case to the trial court. See Woide v. Fannie Mae, 116 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing the order denying a motion to quash service of process because the summons was not signed by the clerk and was not sealed by the court’s official seal). REVERSED; REMANDED. SAWAYA, COHEN, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.…