ORBESTES RICO WILLIAMS
v.
YANINA WILLIAMS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. 1Appellee was precluded from filing an answer brief after failing to heed this Court’s order directing her to file same within a specified period of time.
Affirmed. See Orta v. Polas, 579 So. 2d 918, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“The standard of review in a case of retroactive child support is whether the trial court abused its discretion.”); Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” (quoting Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))); Francavilla v. Francavilla, 969 So. 2d 522, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[The] findings of the trial court come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed absent a showing that there was no competent evidence to sustain them.” (quoting Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004))).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Kandice K. Francavilla v. Francavilla, 969 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Orta v. Jeri Polas, 579 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)