JOSEPH A. ZULYWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BEATRICE Y. ZULYWITZ, 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 the award of attorney's fees to the wife was improper given the husband's significant financial obligations and limited resources.
[1] A trial court may award a party's interest in the marital home and furnishings in a dissolution of marriage judgment.
[2] Permanent periodic alimony may be awarded in a dissolution of marriage judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband appealed the award of the marital home, furnishings, permanent periodic alimony, and attorney fee…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
The husband appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage contesting the propriety of the award to his wife of his interest in the marital home and furnishings, permanent periodic alimony and attorney fees.1
As to the award of the home, furnishings and alimony, we find no error and affirm. See Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983); Connor v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
However, we conclude that the award of attorney’s fees was error. The purpose of awarding attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding is to insure that both parties have similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1205; Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Here, the husband was ordered to contribute $2,100 towards the wife’s attorney’s fees. At first glance, the husband would appear to have superior financial ability to secure counsel since he earns about $30,000 annually and the wife has no employment income.
However, the husband is now paying $900 per month alimony, has the care and custody of the parties’ son and has been ordered to pay the wife’s hospital bill totalling close to $9,000. The husband has virtually no savings, while the wife has some stock and savings. In these circumstances, we conclude that the court improperly required him to contribute to the attorney’s fees for the wife.2
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. . The husband also contends that the trial court erred in awarding the wife trust funds held for the benefit of the parties' child. The trial court merely left the trust funds in the name of the wife. Since these funds were either the separate property of the wife or were to be managed by her alone, we find no error. . In making the award of the home and alimony, the court undoubtedly took into consideration the present value of the husband’s pension as an employee of Delta Airlines. However, this pension was not available to the husband until retirement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyett v. Eldis Raymell Boyett, 683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…assets, while unequally distributing the marital debts. Under these circumstances, this district, as well as others, has found that it is an abuse of discretion to require one party to pay the other party’s attorney’s fees. See Zulywitz v. Zulywitz, 473 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (stating that although the husband appeared to have a greater financial ability to secure counsel, after considering his monthly alimony obligation, his wife’s $9,000 hospital bill that he was required to pay, and his lack o…
-
Clerc v. Ambra Diane Clerc, 712 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
-
Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…arties herein are equally able to pay their attorneys. See Mauldin v. Mauldin, 493 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Zulywitz v. Zulywitz, 473 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We reverse the attorney fee award but otherwise affirm the final judgment. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)