PABLO SALVADOR GARCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
LILIANA DE LA PAZ GARCIA, 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 a family law dissolution case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of temporary spousal support to Ms. Garcia and also affirmed the denial of her contempt motion, while preserving her right to pursue additional discovery and a renewed contempt motion if evidence of Mr. Garcia's ability to pay emerges.
The court affirmed both the temporary support award and the denial of the contempt motion. However, the affirmance of the contempt denial was without prejudice to Ms. Garcia's right to obtain further discovery and to prosecute a renewed motion for contempt if required payments are not made and the additional discovery discloses a present ability to make those payments.
[1] An award of temporary support in a dissolution of marriage case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion for contempt may be affirmed without prejudice to a party's right to obtain further discovery and prosecute a renewed motion for co…
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 general magistrate's report and the trial court's order awarding temporary support are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for evaluating the temporary support award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Garcia and Ms. Garcia were engaged in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. A general magistrate's report established temporary support for Ms. Ga…
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 Lack Of Candor cases and more on FLexlaw
SALTER, J.
Mr. Garcia, respondent and husband in a circuit court dissolution of marriage case, appeals an order denying exceptions to a general magistrate’s report establishing temporary support for the wife, Ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia, who is pro se in this matter, cross-appeals a later order determining that Mr. Garcia was unable to pay his past-due support obligations and denying Ms. Garcia’s motion for contempt.
We affirm each of the orders below. With respect to the cross-appeal, however, our determination is without prejudice to Ms. Garcia’s right to obtain further discovery and to prosecute a further motion for contempt (if required payments are not made and the further discovery discloses a then-present ability to make those payments).
The general magistrate’s report and the trial court’s order awarding temporary support are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Young v. Young, 898 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). In this case, the record evidence regarding Mr. Garcia’s income from a family business, his applications for mortgage loans, and his receipt of cash from a family catering business, amply supports the award in favor of Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia’s cross-appeal is flawed because of her failure to file timely the transcript and other record items relating to her motion for contempt and the denial of that motion. The trial court’s denial of the motion in December 2006 does not, however, preclude a renewed motion or appropriate discovery to illuminate Mr. Garcia’s purported and remarkable decline in income and assets following the commencement of the dissolution proceeding and the entry of the support order. The general magistrate’s findings, approved and confirmed by the trial judge, highlighted Mr. Garcia’s lack of candor, the lack of reliability in his testimony, and his “purposeful lack of disclosure of the alleged sale of [two family businesses].”
It is a daunting task for a pro se litigant to attempt to “follow the money” and to prove her allegations that her ex-spouse has committed perjury by concealing income and assets, but this decision regarding her cross-appeal does not in any way restrict Ms. Garcia’s ability to do that in the continuing proceedings below.
Affirmed.