▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court upheld all three orders. It found no unfair double housing payment, since Rogerio wasn't ordered to pay both the mortgage and support at the same time. The court also said judges don't have to strictly follow standard child support formulas for temporary orders. It noted that temporary awards are rarely changed on appeal unless there are serious, urgent problems. Rogerio didn't show that kind of situation. The court also upheld the child care cost split and the $5,000 legal fee award, since Lisanna earned less money than Rogerio.
Lisanna Gonzalez-Furtado and Rogerio Furtado married in 2006 and had two children. In 2021, Lisanna filed for divorce. While the case was pending, a court ordered Rogerio to pay temporary child support of $4,953.62 per month and temporary maintenance of $1,857.36 per month. Rogerio later asked the court to make Lisanna pay the mortgage on the marital home, but that request was denied. The court also ordered Rogerio to pay 75% of child care costs and $5,000 toward Lisanna's legal fees. Rogerio appealed these orders, arguing they were unfair.
The main question was whether the temporary support orders were proper. Rogerio argued the awards created an unfair double payment for housing, that his income was miscalculated, and that the child care and legal fee orders were wrong. The appeals court had to decide if these temporary financial orders should stand while the divorce case continued.
This case shows that temporary orders in divorce cases are given strong deference by appeals courts. Judges have wide discretion in setting temporary support, child care costs, and legal fees before a full trial. It also confirms that any real unfairness is usually meant to be fixed later, at trial, not through an appeal of temporary orders.
Talk to a licensed family law lawyer in New York.