CURTIS SPEIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
VERNITA SPEIGHT, 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 err in dividing joint savings accounts and awarding attorney's fees and costs, as the evidence supported the findings and no abuse of discretion was shown.
The former husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution, challenging the division of joint savings accounts and the award of attorney's fees and…
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 (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These combined appeals are from the final judgment of a dissolution of a marriage and from interlocutory appeals arising out of two interlocutory orders. They are consolidated for all appellate purposes.
The former husband, Curtis Speight, in his appeal from the final judgment, urges that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay to his wife $6,350 representing her share of two joint savings accounts. The division of jointly-owned personal property, when prayed for in the complaint, is a proper matter to be adjudicated within a dissolution of marriage proceeding. See Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 52. The only substantial question presented is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that the husband did not have the right to the entire proceeds of the two accounts. Our review of the record convinces us that a showing of the commingling of the earnings of the parties in many of the areas of the marriage is sufficient in this case to support the finding of the trial judge. Cf. Hendricks v. Hendricks, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 792.
Appellant’s interlocutory appeals challenge the wife’s right to an attorney’s fee and the amount thereof and the order assessing costs against the husband. It is apparent that these matters are ordinarily within the discretion of the trial judge. We find that no abuse of discretion has been shown in view of the relative financial abilities of the parties and the fact that the wife has custody of the child of the marriage. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 137.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Creel v. Creel, 378 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ider “. . . the financial resources of the parties as reflecting one party’s need for, and the other party’s ability to pay, reasonable attorney’s fee.” Ludemann v. Ludemann, 317 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). See generally, Speight v. Speight, 319 So. 2d 197 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and cf. Ritter v. Ritter, 362 So. 2d 384 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The seventh point on appeal urges that it was error to include in the judgment a provision that the husband should hold the wife harmless on a $13,500.00 note jointly ex…
Authorities Cited
- Banfi v. Enrico Luigi Banfi, 123 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 127 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)