MIRIAN GOMEZ-CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
HUMBERTO CRUZ, 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 former wife appealed a judgment denying her request for permanent alimony in a marriage dissolution. The trial court found no identifiable medical diagnosis preventing her from working, noting her prior law enforcement experience and office management skills, and the appellate court affirmed the denial based on the trial court's broad discretion and competent evidentiary support.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permanent alimony. The court's judgment was supported by competent evidence, including medical records and depositions showing no identifiable diagnosis preventing the former wife from working, combined with her prior experience and ability to return to law enforcement or office management work.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in dissolution proceedings to do equity between the parties, and the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court abused its…
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court by re-evaluating the evidence; rather, the test is whether the trial court's judgment is s…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possesses broad discretion to do equity between the parties.”
Establishes the broad discretion afforded trial courts in alimony 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 parties were married for seven and one-half years with no children. The former husband is a medical doctor; the former wife was a police officer b…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Mirian Gomez-Cruz appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Humberto Cruz. The former wife contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for permanent alimony. We find no error and affirm.
The parties were married for seven and one-half years and had no children. The former husband is a medical doctor. Prior to the marriage, the former wife was a police officer, and during the marriage, served as the former husband’s office manager. The former wife requested permanent alimony, claiming that she was permanently disabled due to a variety of medical conditions.
In the final judgment, the trial court concluded, in part:
P. PERMANENT ALIMONY:
(3) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party. ... [T]he Wife was 34 years of age at the time of trial. Wife testified that due to her medical diagnosis and mental health issues[,] she is not capable of going back to work. After reviewing the doctors’ depositions and the medical records[,] this court finds that there is no identifiable diagnosis that would lead this court to conclude that Wife is incapable of working full time and supporting herself. Moreover, Wife’s two applications for Social Security benefits have been denied with a finding that her condition was not disabling.
(5) The time necessary for each party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment. Wife attended the police academy and had worked for several years as a police officer and an undercover agent. During the marriage[,] Wife worked as an officer manager in the Husband’s medical office. Wife can begin employment in the law enforcement field or find suitable employment as an officer manager. In Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we said:
In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possesses] broad discretion to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1202-03. In reviewing a dissolution judgment, this court looks at the judgment as a whole in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So. 2d 654, 657 (Fla.1991). “It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the test is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.” Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983)).
Having reviewed the record thoroughly, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent evidence. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion in denying an award of permanent alimony to the former wife. Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joslin v. Joslin, 933 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…nancial awards in the judgment using an abuse of discretion standard. See Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). While this is admittedly a close case, the judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Gomez-Cruz v. Cruz, 919 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). As reasonable persons could differ with respect to the propriety of the actions of the trial judge, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, and affirm. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980); Bea…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1991)
- Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Vitalis v. Lesli Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Layeni v. Kehinde A. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)