Greenhouse v. Greenhouse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenhouse v. Greenhouse

913 So. 2d 1201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16255, 2005 WL 2508581

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 12, 2005·No. No. 4D05-1587·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER-CURIAM.

We reverse the temporary support order. The trial court abused its discretion-in ordering the husband to pay $3,000 per month in undifferentiated support to the wife, as there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the husband had the ability to pay this amount. Further, in making the undifferentiated award, the trial court did not identify “which share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony.” Blum v. Blum, 769 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see Fleischfresser v. Accursio, 833 So.2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

KLEIN, GROSS, and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER-CURIAM.

We reverse the temporary support order. The trial court abused its discretion-in ordering the husband to pay $3,000 per month in undifferentiated support to the wife, as there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the husband had the ability to pay this amount. Further, in making the undifferentiated award, the trial court did not identify “which share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony.” Blum v. Blum, 769 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see Fleischfresser v. Accursio, 833 So.2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

KLEIN, GROSS, and MAY, JJ., concur.

Greenhouse v. Greenhouse, 913 So. 2d 1201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16255, 2005 WL 2508581 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

913 So. 2d 1201 (Greenhouse v. Greenhouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related