Allen v. Allen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. Allen

561 So. 2d 452, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3494, 1990 WL 64127

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2116

StatusPublished

This text of 561 So. 2d 452 (Allen v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Allen, 561 So. 2d 452, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3494, 1990 WL 64127 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a non-final order requiring appellant to pay temporary alimony to appellee. There is no evidentiary basis to support the award. Appellee’s net income is $1,840.00; appellant’s is $719.48. Appellant’s expenses exceed his income; appellee’s do not. Appellant’s expenses are minimal, reasonable, necessary and not inflated; not so appellee’s. For example, appellee claims a $100 monthly dog boarding expense, $100 per month beautician expense and a vague $375 per month home and car repairs.

The order for temporary alimony is reversed because the record clearly shows appellant is unable to pay alimony and ap-pellee is not in need. Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fields v. Fields, 533 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Schubot v. Schubot, 523 So.2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Wenzel v. Wenzel, 512 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

ORDER REVERSED.

COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a non-final order requiring appellant to pay temporary alimony to appellee. There is no evidentiary basis to support the award. Appellee’s net income is $1,840.00; appellant’s is $719.48. Appellant’s expenses exceed his income; appellee’s do not. Appellant’s expenses are minimal, reasonable, necessary and not inflated; not so appellee’s. For example, appellee claims a $100 monthly dog boarding expense, $100 per month beautician expense and a vague $375 per month home and car repairs.

The order for temporary alimony is reversed because the record clearly shows appellant is unable to pay alimony and ap-pellee is not in need. Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fields v. Fields, 533 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Schubot v. Schubot, 523 So.2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Wenzel v. Wenzel, 512 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

ORDER REVERSED.

COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 452, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3494, 1990 WL 64127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-allen-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack