DOUGLAS A. MELDRUM
v.
CATHERINE BERGAMO-MELDRUM
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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed four interlocutory orders entered on the same day, including a temporary injunction, temporary relief order, and denials of the husband's motions regarding lis pendens notice and temporary support. The court reversed the temporary relief order for failure to make required findings of net income and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the other orders.
The court held that the trial court erred by entering a temporary support order without making a finding of net income, which is required by law to evaluate whether the order exceeds or exhausts a party's income. The temporary relief order was reversed and remanded for the trial court to make specific findings regarding net income.
[1] A trial court must make a specific finding of the obligor's net income when entering a temporary support order to permit appellate review of whether the order exceeds or…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A court errs when it enters a temporary support order that 'exceeds or nearly exhausts a party's income.'”
Citing Wilder v. Wilder and Bolton v. Bolton, establishing the standard for temporary support orders.
The wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage from the husband. The trial court entered four interlocutory orders: granting the wife's temporary inj…
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 Motion For Temporary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J.
The Wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage from the Husband. At issue in this appeal are four interlocutory orders entered on the same day. Those orders: (1) granted the Wife’s verified motion for temporary injunction; (2) granted the Wife’s motion for temporary relief; (3) denied the Husband’s “urgent” motion to dissolve notice of lis pendens or require Wife to post bond; and (4) denied the Husband’s motion for entry of order establishing temporary support obligations and for interim equitable distribution. We reverse and remand, in part, and otherwise affirm without discussion.
i. The Court Erred When It Entered a Temporary Relief Order Without Making a Finding of Net Income
We address the Husband’s argument that the court erred when it failed to make a finding of the Husband’s net income in the temporary relief order. 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. 3d 301, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also Bengisu v. Bengisu, 12 So. 3d 283, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding where “the trial court failed to make specific findings indicating the source and amount of husband’s imputed income” (citation omitted)). Because the court did not make a finding of net income, we cannot evaluate the Husband’s claim that the temporary relief order exhausted his income. As a result, we reverse the temporary relief order and remand for further proceedings.
ii. Conclusion
The temporary relief order is reversed for failure to make a finding of net income and remanded for additional findings. The orders are otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded in part. WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mejia v. Mejia (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Isadore Philips Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Dogan M. Bengisu v. Bengisu, 12 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Elias v. Elias, 168 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Wilder v. Wilder, 42 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)