Beal v. Beal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beal v. Beal

714 So. 2d 568, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, 1998 WL 337269

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3806

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 714 So. 2d 568 (Beal v. Beal) 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

Beal v. Beal, 714 So. 2d 568, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, 1998 WL 337269 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant and Appellee were formerly husband and wife. Their marriage was dissolved in 1994, and Appellant was ordered to pay child support based upon net income of $5,912 per month. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to modify and reduce the amount of child support. He alleged a signif[569]*569icant decrease in income from his business, a bar known as “Tim’bers”, wholly owned by him. Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying him relief, which was based upon imputation of income and the availability of assets sufficient to generate significant income. We affirm.

While we disapprove of the amount of income imputed to Appellant, we nevertheless find that the trial court correctly found that Appellant continued to have sufficient assets and actual income to pay the amount of child support previously ordered. In particular, the trial court noted Appellant’s ownership of an unencumbered waterfront beach home, having a fair market value of $350,000.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant and Appellee were formerly husband and wife. Their marriage was dissolved in 1994, and Appellant was ordered to pay child support based upon net income of $5,912 per month. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to modify and reduce the amount of child support. He alleged a signif[569]*569icant decrease in income from his business, a bar known as “Tim’bers”, wholly owned by him. Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying him relief, which was based upon imputation of income and the availability of assets sufficient to generate significant income. We affirm.

While we disapprove of the amount of income imputed to Appellant, we nevertheless find that the trial court correctly found that Appellant continued to have sufficient assets and actual income to pay the amount of child support previously ordered. In particular, the trial court noted Appellant’s ownership of an unencumbered waterfront beach home, having a fair market value of $350,000.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 568, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, 1998 WL 337269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beal-v-beal-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack