MARCOS B. GUIRGIS, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANA GUIRGIS, 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 husband appeals a final dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the trial court's application of equitable adoption doctrine to impose child support obligations and contesting the combined alimony and child support awards as excessive. The appellate court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed both aspects of the financial award. The equitable adoption argument was without merit, and the combined alimony and child support awards did not constitute an abuse of discretion given the trial court's finding that the husband possessed greater ability to pay than claimed and considering the overall scheme of financial obligations including the temporary nature of the bridge-the-gap alimony.
[1] A trial court may apply the principle of equitable adoption to order child support payments.
[2] An appellant bears the burden of providing a proper record for appellate review, and the failure to do so is typically fatal to the appellant's claims.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The [husband] clearly has some ability to pay in that he has been able to make the mortgage payment on his new business and ... pay his monthly bills.... [T]he court finds that he has drastically minimized his income for the purposes of this hearing.”
Establishes the trial court's finding that the husband possessed greater ability to pay than claimed, justifying the financial awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarcos Guirgis, a husband, was ordered to pay child support for a child he claimed he never adopted. The trial court found that the husband had minimi…
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 Equitable Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
Marcos Guirgis, the husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He first argues that the trial court erred by applying the principle of equitable adoption and ordering him to pay child support for a child he claims he never adopted. We find this argument to be without merit, see C.C.A. v. J.M.A., 744 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Wade v. Wade, 586 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and we affirm this portion of the order without further comment.
His second argument is that the combined alimony and child support awards consume too much of the income imputed to him by the trial court. Notably, however, the trial court found that
[t]he [hjusband clearly has some ability to pay in that he has been able to make the mortgage payment on his new business and ... pay his monthly bills.... [T]he court finds that he has drastically minimized his income for the purposes of this hearing.
Clearly then, the trial court believed that the husband was earning more than the minimum wage amount imputed to him and based the financial award on that belief. Our review of this issue is hampered by the lack of a transcript, and the husband has not convinced us there is an error on the face of the record. See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that “[t]he most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript” and that because “[t]he appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court ... the failure to do so is ‘usually fatal’ to the appellant’s claims” (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))).
Furthermore, we note that the alimony award was a bridge-the-gap provision which began in July 2009 and which terminates eighteen months thereafter. Thus, a large portion of the financial award will disappear by the end of 2010. Because we must consider the overall scheme of the financial award and not merely refer to the percentages involved, see Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 685, 638 (Fla.1986); Vick v. Vick, 675 So.2d 714, 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and due to the lack of a transcript, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the award.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Sims v. State, 675 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Redding v. State, 675 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- T & L Mgmt., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- C.C.A. v. J.M.A., 744 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)