PATRICIA JOSEPH SISCA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES ANGELO SISCA, 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.
In this family law appeal, the former wife challenges orders modifying alimony downward and requiring her to pay approximately $120,000 in the former husband's attorney's and expert's fees. The court affirmed the alimony modification but reversed the fee orders, finding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to establish the requisite need and ability to pay.
The court affirmed the alimony modification order but reversed the fee orders. The fee orders were reversed because the evidence failed to demonstrate both the necessary need on the part of the recipient spouse and the ability to pay on the part of the paying spouse, as required by section 61.16.
[1] Attorney's fees are awardable under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, only where there is both a need on the part of the recipient spouse and an ability to pay on the part…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when the evidence fails to demonstrate the requisite need and ability to pay.
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“Attorney's fees are awardable under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, only where there is both a need on the part of the recipient spouse and an ability to pay on the part of the paying spouse.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding attorney's fees in family law cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband petitioned for downward modification of alimony, claiming diminished income. The trial court found the husband's income claim credi…
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 Liquid Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, former wife challenges orders granting former husband’s petition for downward modification of alimony" and requiring former wife to pay former husband’s attorney’s and expert’s fees totaling approximately $120,000.1 Finding no abuse of discretion in the modification of alimony, we affirm that order without further comment. As for the fee orders, we agree with wife’s argument that the evidence fails to demonstrate the requisite need and ability to pay and write to address this issue.
Attorney’s fees are awardable under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, only where there is both a need on the part of the recipient spouse and an ability to pay on the part of the paying spouse. See Phillips v. Ford, 68 So.3d 257, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The evidence fails to establish that this is the case here.
The trial court made no factual finding regarding the amount of the husband’s income or expenses, but clearly found his claim of diminished income credible. But, even after accounting for husband’s diminished income, husband has an income nearly three times that of wife, i.e., based on figures in husband’s financial affidavit and assuming'payment of $1,500 in alimony, husband’s net monthly income is approximately $21,000, while wife’s gross income, after receipt of $1,500 in alimony, is about $8,000 ($6,724 gross income found by trial court, which includes imputed income/employment perks + $1,500 alimony). It is true that wife has between $1.2 and $1.4 million in investment accounts and thus significantly greater liquid assets than husband. These investment accounts are, however, the primary source of wife’s income. Wife’s payment of husband’s attorney’s fees will force her to invade these assets — something it appears she will already have to do based upon the court’s finding that wife has a gross monthly income of $6,724 and needs of $7,500 per month (in comparison, husband’s financial affidavit puts' his monthly expenditures in excess of $25,000) and the suspension of the $1,500 monthly alimony for the next 37 1/2 months. Moreover, husband is not without assets, i.e., his financial affidavit reflects a whole life insurance policy with a cash value of $20,651, approximately $11,000 in cash, a 401(k) plan valued at $127,961 and net equity in his real estate investments of $676,250. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to require wife to pay husband’s fees; the fee orders in favor of husband are thus reversed.
Affirmed in part & Reversed in part.
TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.