NAYELI HERNANDEZ v. JOVAN HERNANDEZ ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •       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