FRANKIE WOODWARD
v.
CLAUDE C. WOODWARD
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.
This case involves a contempt proceeding against a solicitor for failing to comply with a court order regarding attorney's fees. The court clarifies its previous orders, establishing the total attorney's fee owed and ordering the appellee to pay the remaining balance.
The total attorney's fee for the appellant's solicitor for services incident to the appeal is $125. The appellee must pay an additional $25 to satisfy this total amount.
“From an investigation of the record and briefs filed in this case on the wife’s behalf, the Court has determined that an attorney’s fee for the wife’s solicitor should be allowed and that the sum of One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars is a reasonable fee to be allowed for the services' performed, taking into consideration the financial status of the husband.”
Establishes the court's determination of a reasonable attorney's fee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe court had previously ordered the appellee to pay $100 for the appellant's solicitor's fees. The appellee complied with this order. However, a subs…
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 Alimony Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on petition for rule nisi in contempt proceedings to require appellee’s solicitor to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court because of his failure to comply with the order of this Court entered on December 27th, 1935, as' follows:
“From an investigation of the record and briefs filed in this case on the wife’s behalf, the Court has determined that an attorney’s fee for the wife’s solicitor should be allowed and that the sum of One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars is a reasonable fee to be allowed for the services' performed, taking into consideration the financial status of the husband. The petition for alimony pending appeal goes down with the affirmance of the decree in the absence of some special or peculiar equity on the wife’s pdrt being shown.
“Decree of divorce affirmed. Petition for attorney’s fees allowed in the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars'. Alimony pending appeal denied.”
*184On June 25, 1935, we entered an order requiring appellee to pay to appellant for fees for her solicitor the sum of $100.00 as compensation for representing appellant in this Court. It is now made'to appear that appellee has paid the sum of $100.00 as attorney’s fee for appellant’s solicitor in compliance with our order of June 25, 1935. It was not the intention of this Court to require appellant to pay the Sum of $100.00 as required in the order of June 25, 1935, and the additional sum of $125.00 as named in the final order of December 27, 1935. It was intended to fix the total fee to be paid by appellee for appellant’s solicitor for services incident to the appeal at $125.00. Therefore, it is ordered that upon appellee’s paying to appellant for her solicitor the sum of $25.00 in addition to the $100.00 required by our order of June 25,-1935, he be discharged from further liability in this regard.
It is so ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.