ALLEN ALBERT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
HELAINE ALBERT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
ALLEN ALBERT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
HELAINE ALBERT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
690 So. 2d 734
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage. Although the former husband has raised several issues on appeal, we affirm as to all but one — the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the former wife. The equitable distribution of the marital assets left the parties in substantial financial parity. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to require the former husband to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As to the former wife’s cross appeal, having carefully considered the merits, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
GUNTHER, C.J., and DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. Reed, 710 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…orney’s fees against him was erroneous. We agree. Where the equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets leave the parties in substantial financial parity, an award assessing attorney’s fees is an abuse of discretion. See Albert v. Albert, 690 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Here, the trial court specifically found that Former Wife’s monthly income was actually $500 more than Former Husband’s monthly income. While the parties’ had marginal assets a…
Authorities Cited
- Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)