Hodin v. Hodin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hodin v. Hodin

540 So. 2d 847, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 436, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1989

DocketNos. 88-428, 88-1522

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 540 So. 2d 847 (Hodin v. Hodin) 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

Hodin v. Hodin, 540 So. 2d 847, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 436, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 725 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment of marriage dissolution in which both parties attack the child support and rehabilitative alimony awards. The wife also appeals a provision of a post-judgment order allowing the husband to pay part of the child support award directly to the private school which the parties’ minor child attends; the husband further appeals a post-judgment order requiring him to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees. We conclude that neither party has shown an abuse of discretion or legal error in any of these rulings and affirm the final judgment and post-judgment orders appealed from in all respects. In particular, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence in this record for the trial court to conclude that the husband has the present earning capacity to pay for the alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees awarded in this cause. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Maddux v. Maddux, 495 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Linn v. Linn, 464 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Anderson v. Anderson, 451 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment of marriage dissolution in which both parties attack the child support and rehabilitative alimony awards. The wife also appeals a provision of a post-judgment order allowing the husband to pay part of the child support award directly to the private school which the parties’ minor child attends; the husband further appeals a post-judgment order requiring him to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees. We conclude that neither party has shown an abuse of discretion or legal error in any of these rulings and affirm the final judgment and post-judgment orders appealed from in all respects. In particular, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence in this record for the trial court to conclude that the husband has the present earning capacity to pay for the alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees awarded in this cause. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Maddux v. Maddux, 495 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Linn v. Linn, 464 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Anderson v. Anderson, 451 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 847, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 436, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodin-v-hodin-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack