JUDITH C. LAHUIS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHESTER A. LAHUIS, 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 denying attorney's fees to the wife, given the substantial disparity in the parties' financial positions.
The wife appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment where she received an equitable distribution of the husband's pension increase and past medical b…
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 Short-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Judith LaHuis (wife), appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The parties were married for three and one-half years. The trial court awarded the wife $10,000 which represented an equitable distribution of the increase in the husband’s pension plan, and $201 in past due medical bills. The trial court denied the wife’s request for alimony and attorney’s fees.
Given that this was a short term marriage, and that the wife’s earning potential after the marriage was not diminished, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the wife’s request for alimony. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
However, where the parties’ financial positions are not the same, and one party has a superior ability to secure and pay for counsel, the court should award attorney’s fees to the disadvantaged party. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Locke v. Locke, 413 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
In this case, because the husband’s financial position (net worth of $800,000) was substantially superior to that of the wife’s, the trial court should have awarded the wife attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment except for the denial of attorney’s fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. Adkins, 650 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…[*66] ney’s fees for the wife. At the very least, reasonable people may differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling in this respect. See § 61.08(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Nash v. Nash, 624 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); LaHuis v. LaHuis, 590 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Antonini v. Antonini, 473 So. 2d 739, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986). E Finally, the wife contends that the trial court erred in excluding the enhanced value of the marital home as a marital asset…
-
SOL v. SOL, 656 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ney’s fees. These cases have typically involved a large disparity in income between the payor and payee spouse. See Leonard v. Leonard, 613 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lozano-Ciccia v. Lozano, 599 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); LaHuis v. LaHuis, 590 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Garcia v. Garcia, 570 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Zakarin v. Zakarin, 565 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Heller v. Kuvin, 490 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Indeed, in a number…
-
Gallinar v. Gallinar, 763 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…g., Castillo v. Castillo, 626 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (no alimony for 37-year-old after five-year marriage); Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (no permanent alimony for 36-year-old after six-year marriage); LaHuis v. LaHuis, 590 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (no alimony following three and a half-year marriage). However, the shortness of a marriage does not preclude an award of permanent alimony. See Volosin v. Volosin, 382 So. 2d 733, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). This marriage lasted two…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Locke v. Locke, 413 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)