Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARIO GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. AURORA GONZALEZ, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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 inFleischfresser v. Accursio, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D 2335 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 30, 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GONZALEZ v. GONZALEZ
(Dec 23, 2002)