Bloom v. Bloom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bloom v. Bloom

546 So. 2d 1146, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4209, 1989 WL 81724

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 1989

DocketNo. 89-0438

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 1146 (Bloom v. Bloom) 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

Bloom v. Bloom, 546 So. 2d 1146, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4209, 1989 WL 81724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The wife brings a non-final appeal of an order granting temporary support, claiming that the trial court erred in considering a separation agreement entered into by the parties, and also that the amount of the award was so low as to be an abuse of discretion.

We find no error with respect to consideration of the separation agreement under the circumstances of this case. With respect to the amount of undifferentiated family support the husband testified that he agreed to pay his child’s private schooling, summer camp, and all medical and dental expenses, in addition to the monthly award which agreement is not reflected in the order granting the support. Without those amounts included, the husband’s support for his child, considering his resources, would be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for inclusion of these as part of the temporary support obligation.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The wife brings a non-final appeal of an order granting temporary support, claiming that the trial court erred in considering a separation agreement entered into by the parties, and also that the amount of the award was so low as to be an abuse of discretion.

We find no error with respect to consideration of the separation agreement under the circumstances of this case. With respect to the amount of undifferentiated family support the husband testified that he agreed to pay his child’s private schooling, summer camp, and all medical and dental expenses, in addition to the monthly award which agreement is not reflected in the order granting the support. Without those amounts included, the husband’s support for his child, considering his resources, would be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for inclusion of these as part of the temporary support obligation.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 1146, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4209, 1989 WL 81724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-bloom-fladistctapp-1989.