MANUEL BINKER, APPELLANT,
v.
CARIDAD BINKER, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
The former husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, including orders on new trial, equitable distribution, and 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 Litigation Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Binker, the former husband, appeals from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage; the order denying the former husband’s motion for a new trial or to. amend the judgment; the order amending the equitable distribution schedule; and the order granting the former wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm.
After a careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s equitable distribution and award of permanent periodic alimony. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985). The trial court justified its distribution of marital assets and liabilities with factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence. See § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the court’s award of attorney’s fees to the former wife. See Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)(“The amount of attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to a dissolution of marriage action is a matter largely within the trial judge’s discretion; in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion as to the amount awarded, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.”). The record demonstrates that the former husband is in a better position financially to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees. See Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1205; Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla.1997); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The award is further warranted by the husband’s litigation misconduct, as much of the legal fees are attributable to enforcement and contempt proceedings against the former husband, and several of his legal arguments totally lacked merit. See Rosen, 696 So. 2d at 701; Diaz v. Diaz, 727 So. 2d 954, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Taylor v. Taylor, 734 So. 2d 473, 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…existence and course of prior or pending litigation. Rosen, 696 So. 2d at 700. Several cases have recognized the appropriateness of attorney’s fee awards in dissolution cases based on the litigation misconduct of the parties. See Binker v. Binker, 781 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); McAliley v. McAliley, 704 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). -Both sides point the finger at each other,…
-
Eli Levy v. Levy, 862 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ay the former wife’s attorney’s fees as the former wife did not work and was unable to work because of her immigration status. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife. See Binker v. Binker, 781 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Baker v. Baker, 754 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Next, the former wife contends the trial court erred in the amount of income it imputed to the former husband and in denying the former wife’s motion to deviate upwards from the…
-
Ratigan v. Stone, 947 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ffirm the amended final judgment. In addition, a trial judge has discretion in awarding attorneys fees as sanctions for parties engaging in litigation misconduct. See Levy v. Levy, 862 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(emphasis added); Binker v. Binker, 781 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In Levy, this Court upheld an attorneys fees award as sanctions to the former wife after finding the former husband engaged in litigation misconduct by testifying in a misleading fashion, not being forthright with his financial a…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Clair Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Diosdado C. Diaz and Dennis Haber, Esq. v. Rina Cohan Diaz & Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 727 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 734 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)