BERGLIETTE B. RINE, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM E. RINE, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the wife's petition for attorney's fees, and that an order directing the wife to pay fees was legally ineffective.
A wife filed an unsuccessful suit for divorce against her husband. After the suit was dismissed, the wife petitioned for attorney's fees. The trial co…
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 Sua Sponte Order cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is taken from an order entered after judgment which denied appellant-wife’s petition for attorney’s fees. In the previous final judgment the court had dismissed the appellant-wife’s suit for divorce after trial. When the cause came on to be heard on the wife’s application for attorney’s fees the court found as follows:
“ * * * The legal issue presented by the oral argument and written briefs for the respective parties is whether or not attorney fees and suit monies shall be awarded to a wife, of independent means, who files a groundless and ultimately *656unsuccessful suit for divorce against her husband.”
Based on this finding the court entered its order denying any recovery against the appellee-husband but of its own motion directed the wife to pay the sum specified as a reasonable fee. We note that the direction to the wife is not in the form of a judgment, but we feel constrained to mention that since it is not based on a pleading or notice to the wife of such application, it is of no legal effect. Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (1927); Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 334.
The finding of the trial judge constitutes a holding that the suit of the wife was not well-founded. In order to reverse a denial of attorney’s fees, the burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. McFarlin v. McFarlin, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 580.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…cord on appeal, we find that appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion with respect thereto and the judgment pertaining to these matters is affirmed. See, e. g., Lee v. Lee, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 6 and Rine v. Rine, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 655. Turning to point two, we conclude that the effect of the alimony provision was to furnish appellant, ex-wife, with monthly amounts for a certain period of years which were not shown conclusively to be more than would be needed annually for the mai…
-
Williams v. Williams, 272 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…e. Reversed and remanded. RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur. . Cortina v. Cortina (Fla.1957) 98 So. 2d 334, 336, 337. . Cortina v. Cortina, supra note 1; Mendel v. Mendel (Fla.App.1972) 257 So. 2d 293, 296; Rine v. Rine (Fla.App.1970) 240 So. 2d 655, 656.…
-
VAC Dev. Corp. v. Abelleira, 330 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…consists of a failure to limit the evidence to matters concerning the mortgage which was in issue. See Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 334; Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 312; and Rine v. Rine, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 655. It is clear from the judgment entered that it does not attempt to settle all the equities between the parties but it is unclear whether the $112,411.80 found to be due ■ Castillo from the corporation is only for the indebtedness due on the mortgage…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- McFARLIN v. McFARLIN, 75 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1954)