MICHAEL M. WILLIAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WENDY T. COWAN A/K/A WENDY T. COWAN-WILLIAMSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2010-12-23
No. 5D09-4119
LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
49 So. 3d 867 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2010) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Imputation Of Income Substantial Change In Circumstances Child Support Modification Motion For Rehearing

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
COHEN, J.

COHEN, J.

Michael M. Williamson, Appellant, challenges the lack of findings in the trial court’s modified final judgment for dissolution of marriage to impute income for child support purposes following his layoff from Boeing Satellite Systems. Instead, the final judgment found the increase in income earned by Wendy T. Cowan, Appellee, constituted the substantial change of circumstances warranting the modification of child support. The record does not include a hearing transcript to assist our review.

Because Appellant never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing, we determine that the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    …hearing asking the court to make a finding regarding those statements. Secondly, they did not file a motion to clarify whether the court’s conclusion applied to those statements or was limited to those in the letters themselves. Williamson v. Cowan, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding, “[b]ecause Appellant never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing ... the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.”). Also, even if the trial court’s finding did include the sta…
  • NEW Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Gray, 177 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …King, 66 So. 3d 321, 325-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding, where “Appellants did not file a motion for rehearing asking the court to make a finding regarding [certain] statements,” they failed to preserve the argument). See also Williamson v. Cowan, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding, “[bjecause Appellant never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing ... the issue was not prqperly preserved for appellate review.”). We state once again: When errors appear for the first time i…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw