final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 16-4601 Sarah I. Zabel,
Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale),
Cura, in proper person.
SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
the husband, challenges a non-final order awarding temporary
child support and alimony in dissolution proceedings pending
in the lower tribunal. On appeal, the husband contends the
trial court abused its discretion in imputing income,
premised upon voluntary unemployment, and awarding temporary
and retroactive support. We affirm the order under review in
all respects, save the award of retroactive alimony.
of 2014, after seventeen years of marriage and amidst
renovations of a home in Miami-Dade County, the parties
separated. At the time, the wife and three minor children of
the marriage were temporarily residing with the husband's
mother in Palm Beach County. The wife secured her own living
quarters, and on February 24, 2016, filed a petition for
dissolution. Thereafter, she sought an award of temporary
alimony and child support for the parties' three
children, on an emergency basis.
lower tribunal duly convened a multi-day evidentiary hearing,
wherein the wife adduced evidence of a formerly lavish
lifestyle. She detailed the husband's serial acquisition
of luxury vehicles, exotic vacations, successful global
business conquests, purchase of numerous pieces of jewelry
adorned with precious stones, provision of private schooling
for the children, and accumulation of significant wealth,
along with an array of gold and silver bars.
the hearing, the court was apprised that, immediately prior
to their uncoupling, the parties sold a valuable parcel of
jointly owned real property. Shortly after the separation,
the husband conveyed a second parcel of real property to his
mother and purportedly encumbered a third parcel of property,
held in trust, with an appreciable mortgage, for the benefit
of a confidant. The husband also liquidated several
investments, including overseas holdings. Nonetheless, he was
unable to offer an explanation as to the whereabouts of any
of the proceeds garnered from this series of transactions.
husband asserted he was wholly dependent upon his mother and
lacked any access to either tenable employment or financial
resources. The wife countered that the husband continued to
enjoy a substantial lifestyle, consisting of travel, private
flight lessons, and the retention of an extensive collection
of luxury goods. She further contended he was the recipient
of regular, periodic gifts from his mother and was
intentionally unemployed in a calculated effort to circumvent
future court-ordered obligations and persisted in dissipating
marital assets by squandering funds on his paramour.
wife described her own vocational adversities, precipitated
by the confiscation of her motor vehicle, at the hands of her
mother-in-law. Additionally, the wife testified she was
compelled to leverage her personal property in order to
finance legal representation and seek advances from her
employer to secure housing for herself and the children.
conclusion of the hearing, the lower tribunal issued detailed
factual findings, giving credence to the testimony of the
wife and wholly discrediting the husband, and imputed a
modest income to the husband. The court further awarded
temporary alimony in the amount of $2, 000.00 per month and
temporary child support in the amount of $152.08 per month.
Both alimony and child ...