JAMES G. ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LORNA D. ROBERTSON, 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 provisions for tuition and support of adult children were an abuse of discretion, but the award of attorney's fees was not.
The husband appealed provisions of a pendente lite order granting child support and attorney's fees. The order required the husband to pay $4,000 per …
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals some of the provisions of an order granting the wife child support and attorney’s fees pendente lite. The husband was ordered to pay to the wife as support for each of the four children of the parties the sum of $1,000.00 per month, making a total of $4,000.00 per month for children’s support. In addition, he was ordered to pay the tuition of one child at Emory University. The court allowed the wife the sum of $7,500.00 for her attorney’s fees.
It was agreed by the parties in this court that the eldest child, Bonnie, is 21 years of age and is a junior in college and that the second child is 19 years of age. The provision for the payment of tuition must be reversed for the reasons set forth in Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, Fla.App. 1974, 299 So. 2d 61. The provision for the payment of support for the children who have reached 18 years of age must be reversed for the reasons set forth in White v. White, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So. 2d 619.
We hold that the husband has not shown an abuse of discretion in the amount of the attorney’s fees. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So. 2d 565.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with directions to enter an amended order in conformity with the holdings set forth.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)….1952, 58 So. 2d 689; Fincham v. Levin, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 883; White v. White, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 619; French v. French, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 668; Warren v. Warren, Fla.App.1974, 306 So. 2d 197; Robertson v. Robertson, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 246; Kowalski v. Kowalski, Fla.App.1975, 315 So. 2d 497. We are particularly impressed by the language used by Judge Boyer in White v. White, supra, wherein the following is found: % * * * * j|c “[3] As stated elsewhere in this opinion the trial judge…
Authorities Cited
- Houston R. White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 113 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)