Burnett v. Burnett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burnett v. Burnett

66 So. 3d 1102, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13041, 2011 WL 3627416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 2011

DocketNo. 5D10-2160

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 3d 1102 (Burnett v. Burnett) 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

Burnett v. Burnett, 66 So. 3d 1102, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13041, 2011 WL 3627416 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the orders setting temporary support, possession of the marital residence, and temporary attorney’s fees. We find no error in the imputation of income to Appellant in the amount of $12,786 per month. However, the court erroneously ordered temporary support payments in excess of the imputed income. On remand, the trial court is directed to address all of the support orders with due consideration to Appellant’s ability to pay. See Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So.2d 282, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding alimony award excessive where it consumed 70% of husband’s net income); Ziajka v. Knight, 767 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing all awards of support, including award of attorney’s fees, for reconsideration of entire distribution scheme where financial obligations imposed exceeded husband’s ability to pay).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the orders setting temporary support, possession of the marital residence, and temporary attorney’s fees. We find no error in the imputation of income to Appellant in the amount of $12,786 per month. However, the court erroneously ordered temporary support payments in excess of the imputed income. On remand, the trial court is directed to address all of the support orders with due consideration to Appellant’s ability to pay. See Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So.2d 282, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding alimony award excessive where it consumed 70% of husband’s net income); Ziajka v. Knight, 767 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing all awards of support, including award of attorney’s fees, for reconsideration of entire distribution scheme where financial obligations imposed exceeded husband’s ability to pay).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 3d 1102, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13041, 2011 WL 3627416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-burnett-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack