RICHARD ROSS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SHERI LYNN ROSS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Husband's petition to modify alimony was denied because he failed to disclose a $1.2 million attorney's fee received shortly before filing, and the wife's cross-appeal for attorney's fees was granted as the modification petition lacked merit and appeared harassing.
A husband's petition for modification of alimony must be denied when he conceals a substantial attorney's fee received shortly before filing and the petition lacks merit and appears harassing.
[1] A party seeking modification of alimony must disclose all material changes in income and assets, and failure to disclose substantial income received shortly before filing…
[2] Attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in a modification proceeding when the opposing party's petition lacks merit and appears to have been brought primar…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved in 2003. In October 2005, the husband, a patent and trademark lawyer, filed a petition for modification claiming d…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 2003, and the husband, a patent and trademark lawyer, filed a petition for modification in October, 2005, alleging that his income and assets had decreased. He did not prevail, because several months before he filed the petition for modification, he received an attorney’s fee in a case he had been working on for several years in the amount of one million, two hundred thousand dollars. To make matters worse, the husband did not include the fee as income when stating his income in the modification proceedings, and his explanation was that he did not do so because it was an aberration. The fee of course increased his income, and in addition his net worth, in direct contradiction to the petition for modification he filed soon after receiving the fee.
The issues raised by the husband are utterly without merit; however we agree with the wife on her cross-appeal and reverse the order denying her attorney’s fees. We do so because, in addition to the husband being in a better financial position, this litigation was without merit and appears to have been brought primarily to harass. Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.