MARGARET M. KUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT DONALD THOMAS KUSE, 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 erred in failing to award attorney's fees to the wife, given the husband's superior financial ability to pay.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in dissolution of marriage proceedings is proper to avoid an inequitable diminution of funds.
[2] A court may award attorney's fees upon consideration of the financial resources of both parties and a finding that one spouse has a superior financial ability to pay.
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 intelligenceThe wife appealed a dissolution judgment, claiming errors in alimony, property distribution, and attorney's fees. The husband had significantly higher…
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 Financial Resources Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the wife, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She claims the trial court erred in a) rejecting her claim for alimony; b) distributing the marital property in a manner advantageous to the husband; and c) failing to award her attorney’s fees. We find only the wife’s claim for attorney’s fees to be meritorious. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
An award of attorney’s fees in order to avoid an inequitable, diminution of funds is proper. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1205 (Fla.1980). A court may award attorney’s fees after consideration of the financial resources of both parties and a finding that one spouse has a superior financial ability to pay the fees. Bryan v. Bryan, 442 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1984). See also O’Steen v. O’Steen, 478 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see generally § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1987); Smith v. Smith, 495 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We find that the trial court erred in failing to award attorney’s fees to the appellant. The husband’s longtime record of income production and his earning ability were substantially superior to those of the wife. See Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lochridge v. Lochridge, 526 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Appellee’s salary is almost three times that of appellant. Additionally, while living in one apartment of the duplex he was awarded, appellee will still be receiving rents from the second apartment of that unit. Finally, while appellee was ordered to pay appellant $10,000 in cash, appellee was awarded over twice that amount in liquid assets. According to appellant’s undisputed financial statement, there is no way that appellant could meet her attorney’s fees obligation short of selling the marital home.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a new order awarding appellant attorney’s fees based upon the evidence and the federal lodestar methodology for the determination of attorney’s fees. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…sidering the distribution of assets and the earning abilities of the parties, the former husband clearly has the superior financial ability to pay the fees and costs. See Martinez-Cid v. Martinez-Cid, 559 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA1990); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA1988); Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA1987); see also Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA1990); Hanks v. Hanks, 553 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA1989). We do, however, conclude that the two orders finding the…
-
Martinez-Cid v. Recy Martinez-Cid, 559 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…990). We find, however, that the trial court erred in failing to require the husband to pay all the wife’s attorney's fees and costs.1 Attorney’s fees should be paid by the party who has a superior financial ability to pay. Canakaris; Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Henning v. Henning, 507 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Although the wife received an equitable distribution of the marital assets,2 she has no immediate earning ability; the husband, however, is employed and has the present abili…
-
Ardith Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…g capacity is a financial resource which the court can and should consider when determining overall financial circumstances and a party’s ability to pay attorney’s fees. Martinez-Cid v. Martinez-Cid, 559 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In this case there is a clear difference in the parties’ earning…
Previewing 3 of 20 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)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Blackburn v. Anne E. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Sheldon v. State, 478 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Lochridge v. Lochridge, 526 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Smith v. Smith, 495 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bryan v. Bryan, 442 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)