Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 15, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-322
Lower Tribunal No. 15-19831
________________
Hanoj Perez,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
Talia Perez, n/k/a Talia Sessel,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig,
Judge.
Marks & West, P.A.; Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez, P.A., and Cynthia
L. Greene, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten, for
appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, Hanoj Perez, the former husband, challenges three
components of the trial court’s December 9, 2016 Final Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage: (1) the trial court’s finding that former husband’s annual income is
$300,000; (2) the amount of a rehabilitative alimony award in light of this annual
income calculation; and (3) the summer timesharing schedule of the parties’
Parenting Plan.
We conclude that the record contains competent substantial evidence to
support the trial court’s finding of the ex-husband’s annual income. Lin v. Lin, 37
So. 3d 941, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The trial court’s determination of the
amount of a party’s income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
When there is conflicting evidence concerning a party’s income, it is within the
trial court’s purview to determine what evidence is most credible.”) (citations
omitted).
With respect to both the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony and its
devising of a “summer break” schedule within the Parenting Plan, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.
2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980).
Our affirmance renders moot the cross-appeal of Talia Perez, the former
wife.
Affirmed.
2