NAYELI HERNANDEZ,

v.

JOVAN HERNANDEZ,

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).