CYNTHIA HODGE, APPELLANT,
v.
G. BYRON HODGE, 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 temporary alimony award to make it retroactive to the filing date of the petition, but affirmed the $5,000 attorney's fees award under Florida Statute section 61.16.
Temporary alimony awards must be made retroactive to the date the petition for temporary assistance was filed when the obligor had the ability to pay continuously from that date.
[1] Temporary alimony awards must be made retroactive to the date of filing the petition for temporary assistance when the obligor had the ability to pay and the obligee had…
[2] A trial court may award temporary attorney's fees under Florida Statute section 61.16 during marital dissolution proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCynthia Hodge appealed the trial court's award of temporary alimony and attorney's fees in a marital dissolution proceeding against G. Byron Hodge.…
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 Temporary Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Cynthia Hodge, appeals the amount awarded by the trial court in regard to temporary alimony and attorney’s fees.
As to temporary alimony, we find there was clear evidence from which the trial court could have based an award of $3,000.00 per month. However, the temporary award should have been made retroactive to the time when the petition for such temporary assistance was filed since it appears that the needs existed and the husband had the ability to pay continuously since the time of filing. Alford v. Alford, 594 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Additionally, we hold that the trial court did not err in awarding the appellant $5,000.00 in temporary attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991). Chapter 61 specifically allows a party to seek attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs from time to time as is necessary during proceedings under this chapter. Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla.1988).
Accordingly, the order on temporary matters is reversed to the extent that the trial court, on remand, is instructed to make the award of temporary alimony retroactive to the date of filing the counter-petition. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
COWART and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). An award of retroactive alimony must be based on the receiving spouse’s need for alimony and the paying spouse’s ability to pay. See Schellhammer v. Schellhammer, 687 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hodge v. Hodge, 607 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In this case, the trial court’s conclusion that the Wife established her need for retroactive alimony is supported by the record. However, we are unable to review the trial court’s award of retroactive alimony because its f…
-
Schellhammer v. Schellhammer, 687 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…denying her request for retroactive alimony. We agree that the alimony award should have been entered retroactively since the trial testimony established both the wife’s need for alimony and the husband’s ability to pay alimony. See Hodge v. Hodge, 607 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In this regard, the uncontroverted evidence established that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the husband was able to earn in excess of $36,000 moonlighting for other medical practices. At the same time, however, the…
-
Buoniconti v. Ivy Buoniconti, 36 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…y, must be based on the receiving spouse’s need for alimony and the paying spouse’s ability to pay. See Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So. 2d 999, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Schellhammer v. Schellhammer, 687 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hodge v. Hodge, 607 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). When one spouse has sufficient income to pay alimony during the pendency of dissolution proceedings but instead decides to provide only nominal support, thus requiring the other spouse to invade marital assets for support,…
Authorities Cited
- Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1988)
- Perdue v. J.T. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Alford v. Alford, 594 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)