Orta v. Polas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orta v. Polas

579 So. 2d 918, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5672, 1991 WL 92367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1991

DocketNo. 90-712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 918 (Orta v. Polas) 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

Orta v. Polas, 579 So. 2d 918, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5672, 1991 WL 92367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a final judgment of paternity and support awarding retroactive and future support payments for a minor child. Appellant contends that the retroactive award for child support was not supported by evidence regarding the father’s ability to pay or the child’s needs. Appellant does not appeal the finding of paternity or the award of future child support.

The standard of review in a case of retroactive child support is whether the trial court abused its discretion. McQueen v. Stratton, 389 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Mason v. Reiter, 564 So.2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and there is substantial competent evidence on the record to support its award. See Landis v. Landis, 486 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a final judgment of paternity and support awarding retroactive and future support payments for a minor child. Appellant contends that the retroactive award for child support was not supported by evidence regarding the father’s ability to pay or the child’s needs. Appellant does not appeal the finding of paternity or the award of future child support.

The standard of review in a case of retroactive child support is whether the trial court abused its discretion. McQueen v. Stratton, 389 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Mason v. Reiter, 564 So.2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and there is substantial competent evidence on the record to support its award. See Landis v. Landis, 486 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 918, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5672, 1991 WL 92367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orta-v-polas-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack