CURT F. FRIED, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTELLE R. FRIED, 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.
The court held that while the denial of alimony was proper, the denial of attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion given the disparity in assets and income.
In a marriage dissolution, the husband, with no assets but substantial earning capacity, requested alimony and attorney's fees. The trial court denied…
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 Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
In dissolving this marriage of approximately two years duration between the husband, age 58, and the wife, age 57, the trial court denied the husband’s request for alimony and attorney’s fees. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the husband’s request for alimony, and on that issue we affirm. On the issue of attorney’s fees, however, we reverse.
While the husband had no appreciable assets, he did have the capacity to earn a substantial income. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying both rehabilitative and permanent alimony to the husband. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The purpose of awarding attorney’s fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is to insure that each party will reasonably have the same ability to secure competent legal counsel. Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Notwithstanding the husband’s capacity to earn a substantial income, he left the marriage with no appreciable assets and without the present ability to compensate counsel. The wife, on the other hand, had assets in excess of one million dollars and a substantial income. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the husband’s motion for attorney’s fees. Peters v. Peters, 366 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Sumner v. Tart, 362 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment denying the husband’s request for attorney’s fees. We remand with directions that the trial court enter an order awarding the husband reasonable attorney’s fees both for the services of his attorneys at trial and, pursuant to his motion, for services rendered in this appeal.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1988)…, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Bryan v. Bryan, 442 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1984); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fried v. Fried, 390 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981).…
-
Dewey v. Dewey, 436 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ccounts totalling $49,596.24, and a $9,000.00 IRA. From these circumstances one cannot reasonably conclude the parties have a similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fried v. Fried, 390 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 380 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Melton v. Melton, 251 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Sumner v. Tart, 362 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Peters v. Peters, 366 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)