LEONARD WILKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA LEE WILKERSON, 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 did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony but did abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the wife.
The wife received $2500/month in alimony and $1725/month in child support, half of the parties' liquid assets, and a property equalization payment. Th…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Leonard Wilkerson (the husband) appeals the portions of the trial court’s final order which award Sandra Wilkerson (the wife) $2500 per month permanent alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The wife receives $2500 per month in alimony and $1,725 per month in child support. The wife received one-half of the parties’ $450,000 in assets, many of which are liquid. Also, in order to equalize the property distribution, the parties agreed that the husband will pay the wife $1000 per month for 28 months, with a final payment of $998.97. The wife is capable of earning approximately $9,000 a year. Given the earning ability of the husband, which is approximately $120,000 to $140,000 a year, the length of the marriage, the fact that the wife is recovering from Hodgkins disease, and the other factors properly considered by the trial court, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding permanent alimony in the amount of $2500 per month. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We conclude, however, that, in light of the payments which the husband is making to the wife, the fact that the husband is paying the parties’ MasterCard indebtedness which exceeds $5300, and the liquid assets which the wife has received, the parties herein are equally able to pay their attorneys and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to the wife. Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees. See Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…s of both parties.” The court is permitted to take into account the [*503] earning ability of both spouses, the amount of marital assets and liabilities distributed to each spouse, and the liquidity of the assets distributed. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Whether to grant an award of attorney’s fees is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion; therefore, absent a showing of abuse of that discretion, the decision cannot be reversed. Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771…
-
Elliott v. Elliott, 867 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…The court explained in the final judgment: 14. Attorney’s Fees. Ordinarily, where there has been a substantial and equal division of marital assets as here, each party will be- required to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). However, this case has been excessively and unnecessarily litigated by the Husband. Discovery costs have been substantially increased by his lack of cooperation with discovery requests that are clearly proper under the rules. He…1 / 2
-
Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…al court. This court has repeatedly held that when a dissolution decree leaves the parties in substantially equal financial circumstances, it is an abuse of discretion to award one party attorney’s fees against the other. See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In this case, the trial court split the marital assets roughly equally, and awarded the former wife close to one-half of he…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)