ALEXANDER B. BALKO, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE MARIE BALKO, 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 amended final judgment on alimony but reversed the order awarding attorney's fees. The court found the trial court erred by basing the fee award solely on the husband's ability to pay, without considering the parties' overall financial resources.
Yes, the trial court erred. An award of attorney's fees must consider the relative financial resources of both parties, not just one party's ability to pay.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution case requires consideration of the relative financial resources of the parties, not solely income and earning capacity.
[2] The purpose of statutory provisions for attorney's fees in dissolution cases is to ensure that both parties have a similar ability to obtain competent legal counsel.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We reverse, however, the order granting the wife attorney’s fees and costs because the trial court awarded the wife 100% of her fees and costs based solely on an assessment of the husband’s ability to pay.”
States the primary reason for reversing the attorney's fees award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed an amended supplemental final judgment modifying alimony and an order granting attorney's fees and costs to the wife. The trial c…
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
KELLY, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, Alexander B. Balko (the husband) challenges the amended supplemental final judgment modifying alimony and the order granting attorney’s fees and costs to Suzanne Marie Balko (the wife). We affirm the amended supplemental final judgment without discussion. We reverse, however, the order granting the wife attorney’s fees and costs because the trial court awarded the wife 100% of her fees and costs based solely on an assessment of the husband’s ability to pay.
The determination regarding an appropriate award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution case is governed by section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2005).
Section 61.16(1) requires the court to consider “the relative financial resources of the parties.” The purpose of the section is to ensure that both parties will have a similar ability to obtain competent legal counsel. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).
In evaluating whether an award of fees is appropriate, courts are to “look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997).
Here, the trial court erred in making its determination regarding whether to award fees because it based the award solely on the relative income of the parties, without considering any other financial resources available to them. See Stoler v. Stoler, 679 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that in awarding attorney’s fees in a dissolution case, the trial court must consider the parties’ overall financial resources not simply income and earning capacity).
Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and costs and remand for the trial court to reconsider its award of fees taking into consideration the overall relative financial positions and resources of the parties and to make findings of fact that will permit review of its decision. See Cullen v. Cullen, 884 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). If necessary, the court may take additional evidence on this issue.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.
DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…valuating whether an award of fees is appropriate. In doing so, “the trial court must look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997); see also Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The consideration of need and ability to pay includes a consideration of the overall financial resources of each of the parties, not just income and earning capacity. See Crick v. Crick, 78 So. 3d 696, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012);…
-
Marcia L. Arena v. John F. Arena, 103 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…in evaluating whether a fee award is appropriate. In doing so, “the trial court must look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997); see also Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). A trial court may also consider “any factor necessary to provide justice and ensure equity between the parties.” Rosen, 696 So. 2d at 700; see also Trespalacios v. Trespalacios, 978 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“[I]n m…
-
Powers v. Powers, 193 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…counsel.” Cullen v. Cullen, 884 So. 2d 804, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The appropriate inquiry for entitlement to fees and costs under section 61.16 is “each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997)); see also Cullen, 884 So. 2d at 306. Of course, there are other factors a court may consider in addition to each spouse’s financial position, such as “the scope and hist…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Stoler v. Anne B. Stoler, 679 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Cullen v. Cullen, 884 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)