Kaufman v. Kaufman

491 So. 2d 584, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1460
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 1, 1986
Docket85-484, 85-2408 and 85-2410
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 491 So. 2d 584 (Kaufman v. Kaufman) 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
Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1460 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

491 So.2d 584 (1986)

Barbara J. KAUFMAN, Appellant,
v.
James M. KAUFMAN, Appellee.

Nos. 85-484, 85-2408 and 85-2410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 1, 1986.
Rehearing Denied August 5, 1986.

Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Health, Nussbaum & Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis and John L. Zavertnik, Miami, for appellant.

Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Daniels & Hicks and Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because the record reflects that the undisputed annual expenses of the parties' *585 three minor children are substantially in excess of the child support awards made by the trial court, we reverse that portion of the amended final decree of dissolution and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to increase the child support awards so that they reflect all expenses of the children — including private schools and summer camps — in accordance with their customary standard of living. Additionally, the judgment is to be amended to make clear that the obligation to make these child support payments is to be Mr. Kaufman's, except that his obligation may be satisfied through the equal use of the named custodial accounts to the extent there are sufficient funds therein. Finally, being of the view that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future, we direct that the amended decree be modified accordingly. In all other respects the amended decree is affirmed. The final judgment awarding attorneys' fees and the order taxing costs and suit money are likewise affirmed.

Amended final decree of dissolution affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Final judgment awarding attorneys' fees and order taxing costs and suit money affirmed.

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

Related

Broome v. Broome
821 So. 2d 406 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Forrest v. Ron
821 So. 2d 1163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Guerra v. Guerra
716 So. 2d 315 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Matthews v. Matthews
677 So. 2d 323 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood
564 So. 2d 141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Wilson v. Wilson
559 So. 2d 698 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Kaufman v. Kaufman
541 So. 2d 743 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Luskin v. Luskin
492 So. 2d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 So. 2d 584, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-kaufman-fladistctapp-1986.