GONZALEZ v. GONZALEZ (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Mario GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. Aurora GONZALEZ, Appellee.

No. 3D02-1922.

Decided: December 23, 2002

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

Perez-Abreu & Martin-Lavielle and Javier Perez-Abreu, Coral Gables, and Andy W. Acosta, for appellant. Maurice Jay Kutner, Miami, and Rand S. Lieber, Sanford, for appellee.

Mario Gonzalez appeals a temporary support order. We conclude that the amount is supported by the record and that the order is sufficiently specific for purposes of review here. See Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

The appellant argues that reversal is required by the decision in Fleischfresser v. Accursio, 833 So.2d 803(Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We disagree. In that case, the trial court's order failed to differentiate between child support and temporary alimony. More particularized findings were needed in order to permit appellate review. There is no child support issue in the present case and, in our view, the record adequately supports the amount awarded.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network