Perez v. Perez

273 So. 3d 1126
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 15, 2019
Docket18-0322
StatusPublished

This text of 273 So. 3d 1126 (Perez v. Perez) 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
Perez v. Perez, 273 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 15, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-322 Lower Tribunal No. 15-19831 ________________

Hanoj Perez, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs.

Talia Perez, n/k/a Talia Sessel, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.

Marks & West, P.A.; Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez, P.A., and Cynthia L. Greene, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM. In this appeal, Hanoj Perez, the former husband, challenges three

components of the trial court’s December 9, 2016 Final Judgment of Dissolution of

Marriage: (1) the trial court’s finding that former husband’s annual income is

$300,000; (2) the amount of a rehabilitative alimony award in light of this annual

income calculation; and (3) the summer timesharing schedule of the parties’

Parenting Plan.

We conclude that the record contains competent substantial evidence to

support the trial court’s finding of the ex-husband’s annual income. Lin v. Lin, 37

So. 3d 941, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The trial court’s determination of the

amount of a party’s income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.

When there is conflicting evidence concerning a party’s income, it is within the

trial court’s purview to determine what evidence is most credible.”) (citations

omitted).

With respect to both the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony and its

devising of a “summer break” schedule within the Parenting Plan, we conclude

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.

2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980).

Our affirmance renders moot the cross-appeal of Talia Perez, the former

wife.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Lin v. Lin
37 So. 3d 941 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Canakaris v. Canakaris
382 So. 2d 1197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 So. 3d 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-perez-fladistctapp-2019.