ALBERT LUIS GONZALEZ
v.
SARAH MARIE-HOWELL TAR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's final judgment regarding parental responsibility, time-sharing, and child support. The court's decision was based on the absence of a complete trial record, which prevented meaningful appellate review of the underlying factual issues.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that without a complete record of trial proceedings, it cannot properly resolve underlying factual issues to determine whether the trial court's judgment was supported by the evidence.
“In determining a party's child support obligation, the trial court is granted broad discretionary authority, and its findings will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for child support determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved disputes over parental responsibility, time-sharing arrangements, and child support obligations. The appellate record lacked a compl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Time-Sharing Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pierre v. Bueven, 276 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA
2019) (explaining that final judgment determining parental responsibility and time-sharing is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Lopez v. Lopez, 994 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“In determining a party’s child support obligation, the trial court is granted broad discretionary authority, and its findings will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”); see also Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” (quoting Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979))); Pitcher v. Schneider, 236 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (holding that appellant’s argument that trial court erred in determining child-sharing schedule in final judgment establishing paternity lacked merit because “[w]ithout a transcript, ‘we cannot resolve the underlying factual issues in order to determine whether the trial court’s judgment . . . is without evidentiary support.’” (quoting McQuade v. Holroyd, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- MacArty v. MacArty, 29 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- McQuade v. Landon Bruce Holroyd, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Mera Pierre v. Kirenia Bueven, 276 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Pitcher v. Schneider, 236 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)