CYNTHIA CARRIE PFEIFER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STANLEY JOHNSON PFEIFER, 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.
In this Florida family law appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a dissolution judgment including joint child custody and rehabilitative alimony, but reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and costs to the former wife, holding that a substantial disparity in the parties' incomes warranted fee awards.
The court affirmed the joint custody arrangement because the unique circumstances of this case, including both parents' residence in the same neighborhood and demonstrated commitment to the child, supported the trial court's exercise of discretion. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees and costs because a substantial and undisputed income disparity between the parties warranted such an award.
[1] A trial court has considerable discretion in making child custody determinations.
[2] A joint custody arrangement may be affirmed when both parents reside in the same neighborhood, demonstrate a sincere desire for a strong relationship with the child, and…
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 intelligence“we believe both should be given an opportunity to do so, provided the arrangement does not prove harmful to the child”
Establishes the court's rationale for affirming joint custody despite it being an unusual arrangement, conditioned on no harm to the child.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded joint custody of the minor child to both parents on a weekly rotation basis, with each parent r…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution, including the provisions for child custody and rehabilitative alimony, but we reverse the order denying the former wife’s application for attorney’s fees and costs.
We affirm the trial court’s decision to permit each of the parties to have custo dy of the minor child a portion of each week because of the unique circumstances of this case, and the considerable discretion granted to the trial court on custody issues. Cf. Gerscovich v. Gerscovich, 406 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Because both parents have continued to reside in the same neighborhood after separation, and each has demonstrated their sincere desire to continue a strong and positive relationship with the child, we believe both should be given an opportunity to do so, provided the arrangement does not prove harmful to the child. The trial court made explicit findings that the custody arrangement would also minimize the conflicts between the parties while assuring extensive participation by each in the care and nurturing of the child. The parents here demonstrated not only sincere concern, but also that their employment schedules would facilitate, rather than hinder, the custody arrangement.
We reverse the denial of attorney’s fees and costs to the former wife because of the existence of an undisputed and substantial disparity in the incomes of the parties. We reject the former husband’s assertion that the wife is able to pay these fees out of other awards made to her. The purpose of the other awards, such as rehabilitative alimony, would be substantially undermined if they were required to be used for attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of dissolution but reverse the denial of fees to the wife and remand with directions that reasonable fees and costs be awarded.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…lity to pay. In Fabre, the trial court’s order directing the husband to pay only sixty percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees was reversed and remanded with directions to require the husband to pay the entire fee and costs. Accord Pfeifer v. Pfeifer, 616 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (Error to deny attorney’s fees and costs to wife, due to existence of undisputed and substantial disparity in the income of the parties). [*283] In this regard, the record reflects that the former husband’s income exceeded that o…
-
Hyatt v. Hyatt, 672 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ence in the record that the mother can actually work. Absent such a finding, the trial court’s denial of fees is found to be erroneous due to the existence of undisputed and substantial disparity in the income of the parties. See Pfeifer v. Pfeifer, 616 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court should make the proper findings regarding attorney’s fees and costs, specifically whether each party has the ability to pay their own fees. JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . The April 1992 agreement…
-
Islanda Caraballo v. Hernandez, 623 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…om the presumption that rotating custody is not in the best interest of the child. Additionally, both parties provided to the court by notice of supplemental authority Bergmann v. Bergmann, 617 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA1993), and Pfeifer v. Pfeifer, 616 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA1993). This court’s opinions in both cases are based on specific factual scenarios and do not affect our current holding. Accordingly, we find that there are no special circumstances to justify an award of rotating custody. We reverse…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gerscovich v. Eugenio Alberto Gerscovich, 406 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)