NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ
This text of NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ (NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 4, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2130 Lower Tribunal No. 18-18208 ________________
Nayeli Hernandez, Appellant,
vs.
Jovan Hernandez, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.
Abramowitz and Associates, and Evan L. Abramowitz, for appellant.
Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, Laura Davis Smith and Sonja A. Jean, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA
2021) (“The standard of review for a child support award is abuse of
discretion.”) (quoting Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA
2011)); Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (The
“findings of the trial court come to this court clothed with a presumption of
correctness and will not be disturbed absent a showing that there was no
competent evidence to sustain them.” (quoting Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d
465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981))); Saario v. Tiller, 333 So. 3d 315, 321 (Fla.
5th DCA 2022) (“A trial court’s decision on whether to impute income is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while its determination of the amount of
income to impute will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial
evidence.”) (emphasis in original); Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736, 737
(Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The standard of review of a trial court’s determination
of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” (quoting Bardowell v.
Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))); Taylor v. Mazda
Motor of Am., Inc., 934 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The standard
of review for the denial of a motion for continuance is abuse of discretion.
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s discretion unless
abuse is clearly shown.”) (internal citation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nayeli-hernandez-v-jovan-hernandez-fladistctapp-2023.