Court Opinion

ID: 9351971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:02:56.410389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:47.603650
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed January 4, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2130
                       Lower Tribunal No. 18-18208
                          ________________

                           Nayeli Hernandez,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           Jovan Hernandez,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del
Rey, Judge.

     Abramowitz and Associates, and Evan L. Abramowitz, for appellant.

      Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, Laura Davis Smith and Sonja A. Jean, for
appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA

2021) (“The standard of review for a child support award is abuse of

discretion.”) (quoting Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA

2011)); Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (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 Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d

465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981))); Saario v. Tiller, 333 So. 3d 315, 321 (Fla.

5th DCA 2022) (“A trial court’s decision on whether to impute income is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while its determination of the amount of

income to impute will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial

evidence.”) (emphasis in original); 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))); Taylor v. Mazda

Motor of Am., Inc., 934 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The standard

of review for the denial of a motion for continuance is abuse of discretion.

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s discretion unless

abuse is clearly shown.”) (internal citation omitted).

                                       2