ALBERT M. CLARK
v.
SIMONE FOURNIER CLARK
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a circuit court's order granting temporary alimony, attorney's fees, and court costs in a separate maintenance case, finding the trial judge's allowances were excessive. The Court reduced the temporary alimony to $100 per week maximum and temporary counsel fees to $1,000, and allowed $300 in attorney's fees for the respondent's counsel in the certiorari proceeding.
The Court held that temporary alimony should not exceed $100 per week, temporary counsel fees should not exceed $1,000, and the respondent's counsel should be allowed $300 in attorney's fees for the certiorari proceeding. The circuit court's order was excessive and required modification.
“the amount of alimony, suit money, etc., should be determined with due regard to the necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband”
Establishes the legal standard for determining temporary alimony awards, citing Collins v. Collins.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWife filed a bill against her husband for separate maintenance and support and attorney's fees. The husband filed an answer and counter-claim for divo…
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 34 to review an order made by the circuit judge upon a petition for temporary allowances for support, attorney’s fees and court costs in a case wherein the wife had filed a bill against the husband for a separate maintenance and support and for attorney’s fees, and wherein the defendant husband had filed an answer and counter claim for divorce. The wife’s petition for alimony pendente lite and for attorney’s fees, etc., came on for hearing before the circuit judge on January 26, 1945 and he announced his conclusions at that time but the formal order was not drawn and filed until the following Monday, January 29.
In considering matters of this kind, the amount of alimony, suit money, etc., should be determined with due regard to the necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband. Collins v. Collins, 153 Fla. 10, 13 So. (2nd) 445. Applying this rule it seems to us that the chancellor was entirely too generous in his allowances. Neither side offered any testimony as to what sums would be reasonable to allow, but there was evidence as to the financial ability of the husband and the needs of the wife. The merits of this case have yet to be decided. Meanwhile, our view is that temporary alimony of $100.00 a week ought to be the maximum sum allowed at the present time subject to such modifications, either up or down as may be shown as necessary by future developments and appropriate testimony; also that the allowances for “temporary”, counsel fees should not at this time exceed $1000.00.
It is the function of this Court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees for services rendered'the defendant wife in this Court against this petition for certiorari. In view of the cost of travel and the time consumed we will allow counsel for *576the respondent a fee of $300.00.’ It appears that he has already been paid $500.00 as required by the chancellor’s' order and the extra $200.00 can be credited on the $1000.00 temporary counsel’s fee.
The writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the court below is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
• CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dwyn Daniels Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…also appears to exceed the standard of living established by the parties during the marriage.”); Herr v. Herr, 463 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (court may not authorize temporary alimony awards in excess of party’s ability to pay); Clark v. Clark, 155 Fla. 574, 20 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1945) (award of temporary alimony quashed where chancellor was “entirely too generous in his allowances”).1 We have found only one case, cited also by the wife, involving temporary alimony where an appellate court deemed the amo…
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 180 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…llor is without jurisdiction to allow an attorney’s fee for services rendered in the appellate court without specific authority and instructions from the appellate court to do so. McArthur v. McArthur, Fla. 1958, 106 So. 2d 73; Clark v. Clark, 1945, 155 Fla. 574, 20 So. 2d 900. The Supreme Court has resolved this issue when it refused to allow an attorney fee to the wife’s counsel upon proper motion under Rule 3.16(e), Florida Appellate Rules. To permit the chancellor to now award the same would create conf…
Authorities Cited
- Collins v. Collins, 153 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1943)