NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 4, 2023
Docket21-2130
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

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

Waton v. Waton
887 So. 2d 419 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Baker v. Baker
394 So. 2d 465 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Bardowell v. Bardowell
975 So. 2d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Castillo v. Castillo
59 So. 3d 221 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Viscito v. Viscito
214 So. 3d 736 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Taylor v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
934 So. 2d 518 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nayeli-hernandez-v-jovan-hernandez-fladistctapp-2023.