EDUARDO FAJARDO SOLACHE, APPELLANT,
v.
GABRIELA LARA IBARRA, 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.
In this family law appeal, the former husband challenges a dissolution of marriage judgment and a contempt order for failure to pay alimony and child support. The court affirmed most of the dissolution judgment and the contempt finding, but reversed the provision for an automatic increase in alimony upon the child reaching majority because the trial court failed to articulate factual findings supporting the increase.
The court affirmed the contempt order and substantially all provisions of the dissolution judgment but reversed the automatic alimony increase provision because the trial court failed to make specific factual findings or articulate reasons supporting the prospective increase. The court remanded for amendment of the judgment.
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage will be affirmed if there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings and no abuse of discretion i…
[2] An automatic prospective increase in alimony upon a child reaching the age of majority is improper without specific factual findings or articulated reasons supporting the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The final judgment fails to make any specific factual findings, or articulate any reason, for such an automatic prospective increase in alimony. We conclude it was error to provide for this automatic increase.”
Establishes the core holding that automatic alimony increases must be supported by specific factual findings and articulated reasoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage ordering the former husband to pay $2,100 monthly in alimony and child support. Th…
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 Presumption Of Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, Eduardo Fa-jardo Solache (“former husband”) seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and a post-judgment order finding him in indirect civil contempt for his failure to pay alimony and child support as ordered in the dissolution proceedings.
With one exception, we find no merit in the issues raised by former husband regarding the final judgment of dissolution, as there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings, and no abuse of discretion has been shown in the evidentiary rulings or other determinations made by the trial court. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The one exception is the provision in the final judgment that, upon the child reaching the age of majority (and the termination of child support payments), the monthly alimony payments to former wife would automatically increase from $2,100 to $2,500. The final judgment fails to make any specific factual findings, or articulate any reason, for such an automatic prospective increase in alimony. We conclude it was error to provide for this automatic increase. See Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Umstead v. Umstead, 620 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
With regard to the trial court’s contempt order, we find no error. The final judgment was predicated upon an affirmative finding -of former husband’s ability to pay the support amount ordered. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985). This initial determination, which is supported by competent substantial evidence, created a presumption of former husband’s ability to pay. Id. at 1278. The trial court’s determination, at the contempt hearing, that former husband failed to overcome this presumption, had the present ability to pay, and failed to comply with this order, was also supported by competent substantial evidence.
We therefore affirm the order of civil contempt, and reverse only that portion of the final judgment providing for an automatic increase in former husband’s monthly alimony obligation (from $2,100 to $2,500) upon the child reaching the age of 18. We otherwise affirm the final judgment of dissolution. We remand for the trial court to amend the final judgment accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Marela Valladares Garcia (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Umstead v. Umstead, 620 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)