MAUNELL STEWART SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CORNELIUS ALBERT SUAREZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of alimony but reversed denial of attorney's fees to wife, holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award fees where husband had superior financial resources and initiated the modification proceedings.
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying attorney's fees to a wife in a dissolution modification proceeding when the husband has superior financial resources and initiated the action.
[1] In a dissolution modification proceeding, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying attorney's fees to the less-resourced spouse when the more-resourced spouse initi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The purpose of awarding attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding is to insure that both parties will have the same ability to secure competent counsel.”
Court explaining the rationale for awarding attorney's fees in family law cases.
In a 1965 divorce decree modification proceeding, the husband petitioned for modification and the wife counterpetitioned. The trial court terminated t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Request For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order entered on the husband’s petition and the wife’s counterpetition for modification of a 1965 divorce decree. The wife contests the court’s termination of her periodic alimony and its failure to award her attorney’s fees. We affirm all aspects of the order except for the denial of attorney’s fees. While we might have reached a different result from the court on the question of alimony, we do not think that it abused its discretion. Hence we will not disturb its decision. Yankow v. Yankow, 357 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Rutenberg v. Rutenberg, 334 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
As to the question of attorney’s fees, we believe that it was an abuse of the court’s discretion not to award them to the wife. The purpose of awarding attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding is to insure that both parties will have the same ability to secure competent counsel. Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that the husband’s financial position is more than comfortable so that he can easily pay for both his and his former wife’s attorneys. On the other hand, the wife has no ready funds available and would have to deplete her meager savings in order to pay a lawyer to handle proceedings which, we should note, the husband instituted.
Accordingly, we reverse the court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the wife and remand the case with directions that it award a reasonable fee.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.K.D. v. State, 799 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…tinguished the fire, damage had already occurred to one of its sides. Thus, by her own admission, she was aware that the fire had caused minor damage to the barn. Minor structural damage is sufficient to support a conviction. See Granville v. State, 373 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Knighten, 568 So. 2d at 1002. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Frank v. Gersmeyer, 522 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…nds to bear these expenses. A superior financial position of one spouse may require that spouse to be responsible for the attorney’s fees of the other party to the dissolution. Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Suarez v. Suarez, 373 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . The wife withdrew $64,000 from joint accounts upon the advice of her first lawyer. The trial court directed…
-
Knighten v. State, 568 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…demand for a telephone call. The burning shirt, which Knighten hung on a wire descending from the ceiling, caused minor damage to the interior of the cell. We believe this structural damage is sufficient to support a conviction. Granville v. State, 373 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The fact Knight-en characterizes the damage as “de min-imis” is more relevant, we believe, when considering the severity of the punishment merited by his actions than when determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence.2 Kni…
Authorities Cited
- Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Rutenberg v. Rutenberg, 334 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Yankow v. Yankow, 357 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)