PEREZ
v.
PEREZ
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.
The trial court's determination of the ex-husband's annual income of $300,000, rehabilitative alimony award, and summer timesharing schedule were supported by competent substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's determination of a party's income in a dissolution of marriage action must be supported by competent substantial evidence, and when conflicting evidence e…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 trial court's determination of the amount of a party's income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. When there is conflicting evidence concerning a party's income, it is within the trial court's purview to determine what evidence is most credible.”
Court's citation of Lin v. Lin regarding standard for reviewing income determinations
Hanoj Perez challenged three components of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage: the trial court's finding of his annual income at $300,000, …
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 Modification Of Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, Hanoj Perez, the former husband, challenges three components of the trial court’s December 9, 2016 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage: (1) the trial court’s finding that former husband’s annual income is $300,000; (2) the amount of a rehabilitative alimony award in light of this annual income calculation; and (3) the summer timesharing schedule of the parties’ Parenting Plan.
We conclude that the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of the ex-husband’s annual income. Lin v. Lin, 37 So. 3d 941, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The trial court’s determination of the amount of a party’s income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
When there is conflicting evidence concerning a party’s income, it is within the trial court’s purview to determine what evidence is most credible.”) (citations omitted).
With respect to both the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony and its devising of a “summer break” schedule within the Parenting Plan, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980).
Our affirmance renders moot the cross-appeal of Talia Perez, the former wife.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomason v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- LIN v. LIN, 37 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)