Opinion
No. 3D19-2203
02-24-2021
Amruta Nilay SHAH, Appellant, v. Nilay R. SHAH, Appellee.
Amruta Nilay Shah, in proper person. Nilay R. Shah, in proper person.
Amruta Nilay Shah, in proper person.
Nilay R. Shah, in proper person.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Rose v. Rose, 883 So. 2d 348, 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (noting the movant's burden in presenting sufficient evidence to support a motion for temporary attorney's fees); Phillips v. Phillips, 264 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that to "enable the court to make the required findings, the party requesting an award of temporary support and attorney's fees must present evidence of the financial resources of both parties, the marital lifestyle, the need for temporary support, and the other party's ability to pay .... If the party seeking an award of temporary support and attorney's fees fails to present sufficient evidence to establish the parties’ relative need and ability to pay, the trial court has no choice but to deny the motion.") See also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: "When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.")