PATRICIA (MCGEACHY) KELLY, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD REUBEN KELLY, 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 trial court did not err in dividing marital property but did err in failing to award the wife attorney's fees.
The former wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution, contesting the division of marital property and the denial of attorney's fees. The wife had …
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 Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal by the former wife from a final judgment of dissolution. She contests the trial court’s division of marital property and the failure of the court to award her an attorney s fee. We affirm as to the first point and reverse as to the second.
Although evidence was conflicting on numerous issues regarding the property valuation and ownership, we are satisfied that the evidence is susceptible to the conclusion reached by the trial court that the property was equitably divided. Only if no reasonable person could consider the trial court’s division equitable should we reverse. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985).
However, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife an attorney's fee. The wife has a substantially smaller income than the husband. The majority of her property award does not become liquid until the marital home is sold. Without liquid assets, she is in a substantially worse financial position in the short run than the husband. The trial court should have awarded her an attorney’s fee. See Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); O’Steen v. O’Steen, 478 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore remand to the trial court to award the wife at least one-half of her attorney’s fee, the final amount to be determined by the trial court which is authorized to conduct further proceedings for such purpose.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with instructions.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schutt v. Schutt (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…scretion by denying a request for attorney’s fees and costs. . . . Earning two and [one half times] more than one’s former spouse constitutes a substantial income disparity.” Martin v. Martin, 959 So. 2d 803, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Kelly v. Kelly, 491 So. 2d 330, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (finding that “trial court should have awarded her an attorney’s fee” because the former wife had a substantially smaller income than the former husband, modest liquid assets, and would be in a far worse financial position t…
-
Claudette C. Rhoden v. Rhoden, 538 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…irm the trial court’s ruling requiring both parties to pay their own attorney fees. The record does not reflect that either party had substantially greater need, ability to pay, or liquid assets, at the time of the final hearing. See Kelly v. Kelly, 491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); and O’Steen v. O’Steen, 478 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part, reversed i…
-
Harrison v. Harrison, 540 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ntial disparity in financial circumstances between the parties, the failure to award attorney’s fees and costs to the wife was an abuse of discretion, and direct the court upon remand to grant the wife an award of fees and costs. See Kelly v. Kelly, 491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johns v. Johns, 423 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).2 We modify the equitable distribution in one respect. The record reveals a computational error. At the final hearing, the trial court calculated that the marital home was wort…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Sheldon v. State, 478 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Booth v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)