LEE ROY WINTERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA MARIA WINTERS, 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 reversed the trial court's award of $17,200 in attorney's fees to the wife, finding it excessive given the parties' roughly equivalent earning capacities, and instead ordered the husband to pay $6,000 total toward the wife's attorney's fees to end the protracted litigation.
A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney's fees in an amount that exceeds what is reasonable in light of the parties' relative financial abilities and earning capacities.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a family law matter must be proportionate to the obligor's financial ability and the parties' relative earning capacities, and an award tha…
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 trial court abused its discretion in requiring the husband to pay attorney's fees in an amount well beyond his financial ability”
Standard from prior Winters decision establishing that attorney's fees awards must be proportionate to the obligor's financial ability
In a prior appeal, this court reversed a $9,000 attorney's fee award as excessive. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and awarded …
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 Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case was previously before this court in Winters v. Winters, 464 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the husband appealed from the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $9,000 of the wife’s $11,000 of attorney’s fees. In reversing that order, we held that “the trial court abused its discretion in requiring the husband to pay attorney’s fees in an amount well beyond his financial ability.” We remanded for reconsideration of the award by the trial court concordant with the parties’ relative needs and abilities.
Upon remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties’ relative financial circumstances. The wife’s attorney again requested that she be awarded her attorney’s fees, now at $17,-200, as a result of the further litigation, and the trial court so ordered.
In light of the evidence adduced, which demonstrated that the relative earning capacities of the parties are roughly equivalent, we find the order to be excessive and in contravention of the law of the case as set forth in Winters.
Consequently, we reverse the order.
Additionally, in order to bring an end to this lingering and costly litigation, we now determine that the husband should be required to pay $6,000 toward the wife’s attorney's fees, which is inclusive of both the previous fees and the additional fees claimed under the present trial court order.
Accordingly, the order under review is vacated and modified.