Fredrickson v. Fredrickson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fredrickson v. Fredrickson

47 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18513, 2010 WL 4861744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2010

Docket4D09-3608

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 So. 3d 975 (Fredrickson v. Fredrickson) 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

Fredrickson v. Fredrickson, 47 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18513, 2010 WL 4861744 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals an order denying his petition for modification of alimony. We affirm, as competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that even if the husband sustained a decrease in income, the change was not permanent or involuntary. We find no error in the court’s treatment of business reimbursements, nor is the husband’s combined support obligation excessive. The husband also challenges an order requiring .him to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. Because the amount has not yet been set, this issue is not ripe for review. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So.2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal as premature.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals an order denying his petition for modification of alimony. We affirm, as competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that even if the husband sustained a decrease in income, the change was not permanent or involuntary. We find no error in the court’s treatment of business reimbursements, nor is the husband’s combined support obligation excessive. The husband also challenges an order requiring .him to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. Because the amount has not yet been set, this issue is not ripe for review. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So.2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal as premature.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 So. 3d 975, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18513, 2010 WL 4861744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fredrickson-v-fredrickson-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack