Peralta v. Peralta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peralta v. Peralta

765 So. 2d 894, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10735, 2000 WL 1190792

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 2000

DocketNo. 4D00-2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 765 So. 2d 894 (Peralta v. Peralta) 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

Peralta v. Peralta, 765 So. 2d 894, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10735, 2000 WL 1190792 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The husband in this dissolution case appeals an order requiring him to pay temporary alimony, child support, and monthly household expenses. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion, because he is unable to pay the total amount out of his income and will have to liquidate assets to do so. We affirm.

The trial court found that the expenses claimed by the wife were not exaggerated, and that she actually may not have been seeking enough. The husband does not challenge her expenses. Nor does he contest the fact that he has sufficient assets (in excess of $1,000,000) to enable him to comply with the temporary order. The wife has no significant assets besides her interest in the marital home. The problem is that the expenses established by the parties during their marriage cannot be reduced, so long as the wife and children are in the marital home.

We have considered the cases cited by appellant in which temporary orders were reversed where the payments either exceeded or consumed nearly all of one spouse’s income, De Luca v. De Luca, 722 So.2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Miller v. Miller, 707 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), as well as Decker v. Decker, 660 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), both of which involved permanent awards.

In fashioning temporary awards, however, trial courts have broad discretion. Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and cases cited. Under the circumstances in this case, in which the expenses for the wife and children, so long as they are living in the marital home, are undisputed, and the husband has sufficient assets to make up the short-fall, we find no abuse of discretion in this temporary award. Affirmed.

DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The husband in this dissolution case appeals an order requiring him to pay temporary alimony, child support, and monthly household expenses. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion, because he is unable to pay the total amount out of his income and will have to liquidate assets to do so. We affirm.

The trial court found that the expenses claimed by the wife were not exaggerated, and that she actually may not have been seeking enough. The husband does not challenge her expenses. Nor does he contest the fact that he has sufficient assets (in excess of $1,000,000) to enable him to comply with the temporary order. The wife has no significant assets besides her interest in the marital home. The problem is that the expenses established by the parties during their marriage cannot be reduced, so long as the wife and children are in the marital home.

We have considered the cases cited by appellant in which temporary orders were reversed where the payments either exceeded or consumed nearly all of one spouse’s income, De Luca v. De Luca, 722 So.2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Miller v. Miller, 707 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), as well as Decker v. Decker, 660 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), both of which involved permanent awards.

In fashioning temporary awards, however, trial courts have broad discretion. Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and cases cited. Under the circumstances in this case, in which the expenses for the wife and children, so long as they are living in the marital home, are undisputed, and the husband has sufficient assets to make up the short-fall, we find no abuse of discretion in this temporary award. Affirmed.

DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 So. 2d 894, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10735, 2000 WL 1190792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peralta-v-peralta-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack