HERMAN H. BROWN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GERALDINE BROWN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the distribution of marital assets and permanent alimony but reversed the award of attorney's fees to the former wife.
The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The husband appealed the distribution of marital assets, alimony, and attorney's …
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 Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Herman H. Brown seeks review of the trial court’s second amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage with regard to distribution of marital assets, alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm the distribution of marital assets and the award of permanent alimony, but reverse the award of attorney’s fees to the former wife.
The trial court’s distribution of marital assets and award of permanent alimony to the wife was reasonable and was not an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Should there be a change in circumstances, Mr. Brown may seek modification of the alimony award. Canakaris; Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
In this ease, the distribution of assets was equal or, if unequal, it was unequal in favor of the former wife. This, in addition to the award of permanent alimony left her with ample resources to pay her attorney’s fees. An award of attorney’s fees to the wife under these circumstances is an abuse of discretion. Ball v. Ball, 554 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gill v. Aurelia M. Gill, 652 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ble distribution of marital assets, it is inequitable to diminish the award by requiring one party to pay the other’s fees where both have substantially equal ability to pay.” Murray v. Murray, 598 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Brown v. Brown, 572 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Benekos v. Benekos, 557 So. 2d 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); and cases cited therein. An award of attorney’s fees under such circumstances constitutes an abuse of discretion. Mwiray; Brown; Benekos. In the instant case, the…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Ball v. Zita L. Ball, 554 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)