CHRISTOPHER SMITHERS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA PITA SMITHERS AND PITA LINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the trial court's award of $100,000 in temporary attorney's fees to the wife and the contempt finding against the husband for nonpayment of fees and temporary alimony in a seven-month marriage dispute, noting the litigation costs were excessive.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife $100,000 in temporary attorney's fees and costs and holding the husband in contempt for nonpayment of those fees and temporary alimony.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding temporary attorney's fees and costs to a spouse and holding the other spouse in contempt for nonpayment when the p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Smithers and Maria Pita Smithers were married for seven months. The husband appealed orders awarding the wife additional temporary attorne…
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 Validity Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
We affirm as to all issues raised by the husband in these consolidated, non-final appeals, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s orders awarding the wife an additional $100,000 in temporary attorney’s fees and costs, and holding the husband in contempt for nonpayment of those fees, and nonpayment of a monthly temporary alimony award. Having so ruled, we take this opportunity to join the trial court in its observation that the extent and legal costs of the litigation being generated in this seven-month marriage is “ridiculous.” (Trial court orders of May 21, 1999 and August 2,1999.)1
Finally, we add that by our affirmance today, we do not imply that the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction to entertain these matters is dispositive of the pending issues of the husband’s prayer for annulment and his allegation the marriage is void because the wife did not have a valid Peruvian divorce from her prior husband at the time she entered this marriage. Those issues had not yet been resolved by the trial court at the time it entered the orders herein appealed, and we may not consider subsequent events in the trial court as to any effect they might have on these rulings.
STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . While we recognize the issue of the validity of the marriage and the wife's alleged Peruvian divorce have added to the complexity of this litigation, we are of the view that the litigiousness of the husband has added greatly to the cost.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smithers v. Smithers, 804 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ees, which were granted in the amount of $100,000. That order was appealed to this court, and we affirmed, expressing concern as to the substantial litigation costs generated in an action to dissolve a seven month marriage. See Smithers v. Smithers, 765 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Eventually, the husband moved for summary judgment as to the validity of the marriage, arguing that the wife was still legally married in Peru at the time she entered into the current marriage. Based upon extensive affidav…