GARY LEE MORRIS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBIN LYNN TARDIF MORRIS, 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 court upholds the trial court's award of permanent alimony and equitable distribution of marital assets to the former wife but vacates the attorney's fees award, holding that fees are improper when both parties have ample financial means and an equitable asset distribution has already been made.
The court affirmed the awards of permanent alimony and equitable distribution of marital assets but vacated the award of attorney's fees, holding that attorney's fees are improper under section 61.16 where both parties have ample financial resources to obtain counsel and an equitable distribution of marital assets has already been accomplished.
[1] An award of attorney's fees is improper when both parties have ample means to obtain competent counsel and an equitable distribution of marital assets has already been ma…
[2] A trial court's discretion in awarding permanent alimony and distributing marital assets will be affirmed unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[t]he court may ..., after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter.”
Sets forth the statutory standard for awarding attorney's fees under Florida Statute section 61.16
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Lee Morris and Robin Lynn Tardif Morris divorced. The trial court awarded the former wife $876,000 in net marital assets (including approximately…
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 Financial Resources Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Lee Morris appeals the award of permanent alimony to his former wife, Robin Lynn Tardif Morris, as well as an award of her attorney’s fees. The former wife appeals the manner of distribution of the marital assets. We find no abuse in discretion by the trial court except with the award of attorney’s fees.
The final judgment awarded to the former wife $876,000 in net assets. The most valuable of these assets was the publically traded stock of a corporation worth, at the time of disposition, approximately $730,-000. The 35 year old former wife was also awarded $3,800 per month permanent alimony, $150 per month rehabilitative alimony for four years, child support of $1,500 per month, costs totaling $33,115 and entitlement to attorney’s fees. The former husband received $1,206,000 of the net marital assets. The most valuable asset he received was an interest in a close corporation worth approximately $1,160,-000.1 The amount of income each party will have after the dissolution is not fully clear, but it appears the former wife will have around $50,000 per year in income while the former husband will likely have double that amount.
Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1997) states that: “[t]he court may ..., after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter.... ” The former wife’s argument, that an award of fees was reasonable because the final judgment leaves the former husband with more wealth than the former wife, ignores an entire line of cases from this district which hold that an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 is improper where both parties have ample means to obtain competent counsel, and an equitable distribution of the marital assets has already been affected outside the award of fees. See e.g., Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993);Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Here, the former wife was awarded permanent periodic alimony of over $45,000 per year and $876,000 in net marital assets. The trial court made an equitable distribution of the parties’ assets. Neither party was left in a position where he or she could not afford his or her own attorney’s fees.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution except for the award of attorney’s fees to the former wife. The entitlement to the attorney’s fees and the amount of the award is vacated.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART, REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, PETERSON, JJ„ and MIHOK, A.T., Associate Judge, concur. . The former husband was also recognized as owning another portion of this corporation as a non-marital asset.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicolaus von Baillou v. von Baillou, 959 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…h the former wife may have been required to liquidate some of her assets, she could have easily paid reasonable attorney’s fees without substantially depleting her overall equitable distribution.” Id. Similar to Blaine and Satter, Morris v. Morris, 743 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), is a case where the wife left the marriage with $876,000 in equitable distribution; the husband’s share was $1,206,000. The wife had about $50,000 per year in income, including permanent alimony of $45,000, while the husband…
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), modified by, Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). . Compare Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Morris v. Morris, 743 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).…
-
Burnett v. Burnett, 237 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…An award of attorney's fees cannot be "based solely on disparity of income," but rather the court should consider the overall financial position of the parties. Arena v. Arena , 103 So. 3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; see also Morris v. Morris , 743 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ("[A]n entire line of cases ... hold that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 61.16 is improper where both parties have ample means to obtain competent counsel, and an equitable distribution of the marital assets…
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
- Thad Richard Sizemore, Jr. v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)