Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher

627 So. 2d 50, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11550, 1993 WL 469325
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 16, 1993
DocketNo. 93-1637
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 50 (Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher) 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
Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 627 So. 2d 50, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11550, 1993 WL 469325 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband Lane Mitzenmacher from a temporary alimony award in a marriage dissolution action. Because the general master before whom this matter was heard received substantial, competent evidence to support his findings that (1) the husband has a “net disposable income of $1,680.00 per month, without regard to [his] future need to pay for separate living quarters at some future date,” and (2) the husband “reasonably requires the entirety of his net available funds of $1,680.00 per month for his current non-household expenses” so that he has no financial ability to pay temporary alimony, the trial court erred in rejecting the general master’s recommendation that no temporary alimony be awarded in this case and in awarding $200 a week in temporary alimony. The trial court reached this result because “[t]he general master erred as a matter of law by taking into [51]*51account prospective expenses of [the] husband ...the general master’s report, however, clearly reflects that prospective living expenses were expressly excluded from the husband’s present living expenses. The trial court was, accordingly, in error in rejecting the general master’s recommendation and in awarding temporary alimony which is clearly beyond the financial ability of the husband to pay. Mahan v. Mahan, 88 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1956); Horton v. Horton, 573 So.2d 423 (Fla.3d DCA 1991); Fields v. Fields, 533 So.2d 922 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Herr v. Herr, 463 So.2d 447 (Fla.4th DCA 1985); McAnespie v. McAnespie, 200 So.2d 606 (Fla.2d DCA 1967).

The order appealed from awarding temporary alimony is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to deny the wife’s motion for temporary alimony.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher
656 So. 2d 178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
627 So. 2d 50, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11550, 1993 WL 469325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitzenmacher-v-mitzenmacher-fladistctapp-1993.