Dent v. Dent, 2D03-699.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Citation | 851 So.2d 819 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-699.,2D03-699. |
| Parties | Anita F. DENT, Appellant, v. Robert T. DENT, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 30 July 2003 |
851 So.2d 819
Anita F. DENT, Appellant,v.
Robert T. DENT, Appellee
No. 2D03-699.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 30, 2003.
Edward C. McFadden, Jr., Tampa, for Appellant.
Neil E. Polster, Tampa, for Appellee.
Anita F. Dent, the wife, appeals a nonfinal order on temporary relief in an action for dissolution of marriage against the husband, Robert T. Dent. We affirm but require the circuit court to clarify that this temporary order is without prejudice to the parties' rights to revisit the issues at the final hearing.
In November 2001, the parties entered into an agreement for temporary support. At that time, the spousal and child support was calculated based upon the husband's net monthly income of $2,962.89. The agreement required the husband to pay the wife, who is unemployed and at least partially disabled, $1,000 per month in temporary alimony and $440 per month in temporary child support for one child.
Exactly one year later, the wife requested an increase in the temporary support awards. She alleged that the husband's income and the expenses for herself and the child had increased. She indicated that she had exhausted all of the savings in her possession at the time of the parties' separation. She also asked for permission to sell an inoperable 1964 Chevrolet Malibu automobile in order to obtain a reliable form of transportation for herself and the minor child.
At the hearing on this motion, the circuit court questioned the parties' delay in setting a final hearing in the dissolution proceeding. The court was understandably frustrated at the thought of having a lengthy hearing on temporary support only to have to address the same issues in a final hearing. Therefore, the court refused to alter the monthly amount of temporary support at that time. Instead, the court entered an order requiring the parties to immediately set the matter for final hearing and prescribing certain stopgap measures to protect the parties and their assets pending the final hearing.
This order effectively provides the wife and child only $1,440 per month in temporary support plus $93 per month toward the child's automobile insurance premium, while allowing the husband to retain approximately $2,699 per month in net income. If this order were to be afforded any level of finality or if it could not be revisited at the final hearing, we might be compelled to reverse. In this case, however, the circuit court specifically anticipated that these issues could be better addressed in a final hearing. We cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in fashioning the temporary relief contained in this order in light of its specific intent to further address the issues at a final hearing that it anticipated would be held in the immediate future.
Although the transcript evinces the circuit court's intent to more fully address these issues at a final hearing, the written order entered on the wife's request does not specify that the court's stopgap measures are without prejudice to these issues being revisited during a final hearing. This court has previously observed that generally, "absent compelling circumstances," an order for temporary support is "final during its lifespan." See Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing with approval Warner v. Warner, 692 So.2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); see also Israel v. Israel, 824 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As such, a circuit court that anticipates that its temporary support orders may need to be refined or adjusted in a final hearing should specify in the order that the provisions are without prejudice and may be modified by the court during the proceedings or in a final hearing. We therefore remand this case with instructions that the circuit court amend the order on appeal to specify that its
Turning to the portion of the temporary order that granted the wife's request to sell the 1964 Chevrolet Malibu, we note that chapter 61, Florida Statutes (2002), does not authorize a court to make a partial distribution of marital assets prior to a final hearing. See, e.g., § 61.052(3), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Kalmanson v. Kalmanson, 796 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (reversing order granting partial equitable distribution); cf. Turnage v. Turnage, 653 So.2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallick v. Mallick, Case No. 2D19-1183
...to make prejudgment, or so-called "temporary" or "interlocutory," nonfinal orders during chapter 61 proceedings. See, e.g., Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In 2008, when the legislature amended section 61.13 to discontinue the concepts of "primary residence" and "visit......
-
Schneorson v. Franklyn (In re Schneorson), 1-22-40494-jmm
...rights and they can be modified or vacated by the court at any time while the litigation proceeds. Fla. Stat. § 61.14(11); Dent v. Dent, 851 So.2d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). "If further discovery reveals that a temporary support order is inequitable or based upon improper calculations,......
-
Hall v. MAAL, 1D08-4776.
...2007); Roberts v. Roberts, 906 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Flores v. Flores, 874 So.2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Dent v. Dent, 851 So.2d 819, 820-21 (Fla. 2d DCA The record supports Dr. Maal's claim that he overpaid child support pursuant to the initial temporary order and that he......
-
Hall v. Maal, Case No. 1D08-4776 (Fla. App. 3/30/2010), Case No. 1D08-4776.
...Roberts v. Roberts, 906 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Flores v. Flores, 874 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819, 820-21 (Fla. 2d DCA The record supports Dr. Maal's claim that he overpaid child support pursuant to the initial temporary order and that he was......
-
Temporary relief
...bank accounts, and underlying cause of action, division of marital property without divorce was not recognized in Florida); Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirm stopgap measures to protect assets of parties, including allowing wife to sell her car, where trial court simul......
-
Alimony and support
...retroactive alimony.).] Typically, temporary orders are entered without prejudice to being altered at the final hearing. [ Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).] However, it was not clear whether a substantial change in circumstances would be required during the pendency of the a......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...been paying on temporary basis).] IN PR A CTICE Section 61.14(11), Florida Statutes, addresses appellate decisions, such as Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), Israel v. Israel, 824 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), that h......