DARLENE F. DRISCOLL, A/K/A DARLENE BOUDROT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH P. DRISCOLL, 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 a trial court must consider the disparity in income and assets when determining attorney's fees in a dissolution case.
The former wife appealed the final judgment of dissolution, challenging the financial issues, particularly the award of attorney's fees.…
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 Dissolution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal the former wife appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court on the financial issues raised by the petition for dissolution. She challenges a number of the trial court’s determinations but we only find merit in her argument that the trial court erred in failing to consider the disparity in income and assets of the parties in arriving at its determination of the former wife’s attorney’s fees.
In order to exercise its broad discretion as to an award of attorney’s fees, if any, the trial court must consider the financial resources of the parties. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997). There must be an evaluation of assets, both marital and non-marital, in order to determine any disparity in post-division assets or income. See Donsky-Levine v. Levine, 658 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). One hundred percent should be granted if there is great disparity in post-division assets or income. Id. at 1025. See also Thompson v. Thompson, 550 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Although the trial court did not err in its determination of income of the parties, it failed to evaluate the husband’s two businesses found to be non-marital assets. This makes the trial court’s award of fifteen percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees invalid.
We reverse the final judgment only as to attorney’s fees and remand with directions that the trial court make those determinations and reconsider the award of the former wife’s attorney’s fees based on the disparity in income and assets.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
STONE, HAZOURI, JJ„ and STETTIN, HERBERT, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…368 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The trial court should make its determination regarding attorney’s fees “after the dissolution proceeding has concluded, based upon the financial situation in which it has left the parties.” Id. (citing Driscoll v. Driscoll, 763 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). Here, the former -wife has received sufficient assets as a result of the dissolution so that it cannot be said that there is a requirement for the former husband to pay this part of the former wife’s attorney’s fees. Given the…
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 925 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ee, but remanded for the lower court to address her contention that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of full disclosure, duress or undue influence. Kelly v. Kelly, 898 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). . Driscoll v. Driscoll, 763 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).…
-
Peralta v. Peralta, 835 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…his/her attorneys’ fees, costs and accounting expenses” (exclusive of the $50,000 accounting fee adjustment). We recognize that the trial court has broad discretion as to the award of attorney’s fees in dissolution cases. See Driscoll v. Driscoll, 763 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Here, attorney’s fees for both parties were paid by the husband out of the parties’ marital account. The wife argues that she should not be punished because her attorneys were cheaper and more efficient than the husband’s. It i…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Donsky-Levine v. Levine, 658 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 550 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)