JOHN G. ARIKO, JR., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MARY ANN ARIKO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPEAL
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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony award to the wife, but reversed the award of attorney's fees to the wife because both parties had substantially equal financial ability to pay their own counsel.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing property and awarding alimony under the Canakaris standards. However, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the wife because, following the equitable distribution of assets, both parties had substantially equal ability to pay their own attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney's fees to one spouse in a dissolution proceeding when, following an equitable distribution of assets, both partie…
[2] An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding is intended to ensure both parties have a similar ability to secure competent legal counsel.
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 intelligence“Where one spouse has a superior financial ability to secure counsel, it is not necessary for the other spouse to be completely unable to pay attorney's fees in order to be entitled to an award of such fees.”
Establishes the threshold for awarding attorney's fees—not absolute inability to pay, but disparity in financial ability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife acquired substantial marital assets during their marriage. The trial court distributed property and bank accounts titled in indiv…
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 Appeal Of Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The husband appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find no abuse of discretion, as measured by the standards of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), in those portions of the final judgment distributing property and awarding alimony, but we do find an abuse of discretion in the award of attorney’s fees to the wife.
The trial court equitably distributed the substantial assets acquired by the parties during their marriage. In addition, the final judgment requires the husband to be responsible for all the debts and obligations incurred during the marriage, some of which are potentially large tax liabilities the existence and extent of which are not yet ascertained. The wife and the husband were permitted to retain ownership of property and bank accounts titled in their individual names. The wife was required to transfer to the husband her interest in jointly owned property, in exchange for which the husband was required to pay her $250,696. In addition, the wife was awarded $120,000 in lump sum alimony. Thus, it appears that the wife has received at least an equal share of the substantial marital assets.
Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1983) provides for an award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding to insure that both parties have similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. Where one spouse has a superior financial ability to secure counsel, it is not necessary for the other spouse to be completely unable to pay attorney’s fees in order to be entitled to an award of such fees. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1205. On the other hand, where the parties to a dissolution are equally able to pay attorney’s fees, it is an abuse of the. court’s discretion to require one spouse to pay the other’s attorney’s fees. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976); Peak v. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). When the court makes a truly equitable distribution of the assets, it is an abuse of discretion to require one party to pay the other party’s attorney’s fees where, on the basis of such distribution, each party has substantially equal ability to pay such fees. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The wife here had substantially the same ability to pay her attorney as did the husband, so the award of attorney’s fees to the wife is erroneous and is hereby reversed. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Thad Richard Sizemore, Jr. v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…st), together with other side business income. Where the parties depart the marriage in relatively equal economic circumstances, it is error to award attorney’s fees to one party. Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. UPCHURCH, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion. . The husband’s 1983 tax returns showed gross income in excess of $182,000.00, exclusive of corporate fringe benefits. However, t…
-
Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…es from which she is well able to pay her own attorney’s fees. See Beaver v. Beaver, 500 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
-
Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…heritance, the wife has a greater net worth than the husband. Since the wife had substantially the same ability to pay for legal services as did the husband, the award of attorney’s fees to the wife was erroneous and is reversed. See Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED. COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 26 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)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)
- Peak v. Ewell A. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)