MASSIEL Y. SADEH
v.
DRUSSO CALENZANI
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.
A trial court's child support modification order is affirmed where the appellant fails to present an adequate record on appeal to demonstrate reversible error, including failing to dispute the lack of an updated financial affidavit or directly address whether evidence was provided regarding overnight custody.
[1] A trial court's award of child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] Appellate courts cannot consider evidence presented for the first time in an appellant's brief if that evidence is not part of the record on appeal.
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“Without knowing the factual context, . . . an appellate court [cannot] reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”
The court explaining why it could not reverse based on the inadequate record presented on appeal.
The mother appealed a child support modification order requiring her to pay increased support to the father. The trial court imputed income to the mot…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 13, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2057 Lower Tribunal No. 22-2893
________________
Massiel Y. Sadeh,
Appellant,
vs.
Drusso Calenzani,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Samantha Ruiz Cohen, Judge. Massiel Y. Sadeh, in proper person. Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, and Sonja A. Jean and Laura Davis Smith, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ. LOGUE, C.J. Massiel Y. Sadeh (“Mother”) is appealing an order granting Drusso Calenzani’s (“Father”) Supplemental Petition for Modification of Child Support, which modified the amount of child support the Mother was required to pay the Father. The Mother, proceeding pro se below and on appeal, challenges the trial court’s imputation of income to her and its determination that the minor child did not spend any overnights with the Mother. Because we cannot conclude on this record that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm.
A trial court’s award of child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “Generally, sufficient factual findings should be included in the final judgment regarding child support and alimony awards. Specifically, as to imputation of income, if the trial court does not include specific findings in the final judgment, the record must reveal competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision.” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 542–43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Here, although the trial court did not include specific findings as to the imputation of income in its order on the Father’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Child Support, the trial court did find that the Mother had not filed an updated financial affidavit since 2019, and that the Mother had failed to provide any evidence to support her testimony that she had overnights with the minor child this year. The record on appeal otherwise does not contain transcripts of the hearing.
Nevertheless, on appeal the Mother does not dispute that she has not filed an updated financial affidavit, and she does not directly address whether she provided evidence to support her testimony that she had overnights with the minor child. Instead, the Mother attempts to provide this Court with evidence in the form of attachments to her Initial Brief, which do not appear to be included in the record on appeal. This Court cannot consider such evidence in the first instance. See Hughes v. Enter. Leasing Co., 831 So. 2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (stating that documents attached to a brief that are not in the record cannot be reviewed by an appellate court on appeal).
Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s order because the record brought forward by the Mother is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without knowing the factual context, . . . an appellate court [cannot] reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massiel Y. Sadeh v. Drusso Calenzani, 319 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ld did not spend any overnights with the Mother. Because we cannot conclude on this record that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm. A trial court’s award of child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “Generally, sufficient factual findings should be included in the final judgment regarding child support and alimony awards. Specifically, as to imputation of income, if the trial court does not include specific findings…
-
Malvin Garnett v. Priscille Duvalsaint, 400 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…t conclude on this record that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm. “A trial court’s award of child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Sadeh v. Calenzani, 389 So .3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citing Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)). Additionally, the standard of review we apply to “appropriately review a trial court’s order imputing income to a spouse is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the findings.” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2…
-
Malek v. Malek (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…ed and Mrs. Malek, Dr. Malek, and Loris. The trial court has jurisdiction over the parties and can determine the ownership of Kymed for purposes of partitioning the parties’ properties in the dissolution proceedings. See Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that property in Key Largo, Florida, ostensibly owned by the husband’s corporation, was not a marital asset subject to equitable distribution). We…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ira Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Massiel Y. Sadeh v. Drusso Calenzani, 319 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)