MARTIN M. BERGER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MELANIE J. GRADUS BERGER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2007-11-28
No. 3D05-1480
Before GREEN, WELLS, and SUAREZ, JJ.
971 So. 2d 892 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2007) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
SUAREZ, J.

SUAREZ, J.

We affirm the lower court’s order denying charging lien and awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of the wife except as to the amount. We reverse on the wife’s cross-appeal the amount of attorney’s fees and costs awarded. On remand, the wife shall be entitled to 100% of the attorney’s fees and costs based on the disparity in income between the parties as pronounced in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage as a result of the husband’s greater earning capacity; the voluntary limitation of his income; and the wife’s inability to earn. See Berger v. Berger, 954 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to recalculate the amount of attorney’s fees and costs for the wife.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ortega v. Eng'g Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …that in reaching our decision on review of an order granting summary judgment, we are required to review the record de novo and construe all facts in a fashion most favorable to the non-mov-ant. See Interested Underwriters v. SeaFreight Line, Ltd., 971 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Ultimately, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that a violation of the statute occurred and that such violation was a substantial factor in the [*530] employer’s decision in this case. See Russell, 887 So. 2d at 379-80.…
  • Austin Bldg. Co. v. Rago, Ltd., 63 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
    …ment, we are required to review the record de novo and construe all facts in a fashion most favorable to the non-movant.” Ortega v. Eng’g Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 527, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Interested Underwriters v. SeaFreight Line, Ltd., 971 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In this case, the facts surrounding the assignment of the Prime Contract to ABC, the identity of the actual contractor when work commenced on the Project and when work was performed by Rago, and the parties’ knowledge of eac…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw