ISADORE PHILIPS BOLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHANIE E. BOLTON, APPELLEE
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.
A trial court cannot award temporary support that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party's income, and attorney's fees must also consider the payor's ability to pay.
In a marital dissolution case, the husband appealed the trial court's award of temporary relief, including support and attorney's fees.…
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 Suit Money cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Isadore Bolton, the husband in this marital dissolution case, appeals from the trial court’s Award of Temporary Relief. He raises three issues. We affirm in part, and reverse in part, addressing only the two issues on which we reverse.
The husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding temporary support to the wife without regard to his ability to pay. We agree, because a trial court cannot enter a temporary support award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income. See Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (awards that provided the wife with nearly all of the husband’s income were an undue burden); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (award that left the husband with fifty dollars per week to live on was error). Under the current circumstances of this case, the husband would be left with only approximately $300 a month for his own living expenses. As such, the award of temporary support to the wife is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further consideration.
The husband also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to the wife without regard to his ability to pay. Because of our concern about his ability to pay the temporary support award, and the fact that reconsidering the award on remand may alter the economic circumstances of the parties, we conclude that it is prudent to reverse on this issue for further consideration of the husband’s ability to provide suit money to the wife. See Friedman v. Friedman, 844 So. 2d 789, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…award which is not supported by substantial, competent evidence. Hence, “a trial court cannot enter a temporary [financial] award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income” because it would abuse its discretion by doing so. Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So. 2d 1191, 1191-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing temporary alimony and child support award which required husband to pay $5778 per month in obligations, where husband only made $5666 per…
-
Williams v. Dania Suzette Williams, 10 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ounts. Smith v. Smith, 737 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). However, “a trial court cannot enter a temporary [financial] award that exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income” because it would abuse its discretion by doing so. Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the record supports the wife’s need for temporary alimony. However, the award of temporary child support and in-kind alimony is clearly excessive, as combined, it will consume 97% of the husband’s net monthly income…
-
Trainor v. Trainor, 199 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…rtgage payments that she was not presently incurring, as she was living with her parents. A trial court abuses- its discretion in making an award of temporary alimony that “exceeds or nearly exhausts” the pay- or spouse’s income. Bolton v. Bolton, 898 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Wilder v. Wilder, 42 So. 3d 961, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing temporary relief order because “the husband’s financial obligations under the temporary support order consume his income to the extent that he is…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Miller v. Blair A. Miller, 707 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Friedman v. Friedman, 844 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)