Altman v. Altman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Altman v. Altman

873 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6989, 2004 WL 1103931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2611

StatusPublished

This text of 873 So. 2d 523 (Altman v. Altman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altman v. Altman, 873 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6989, 2004 WL 1103931 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment denying all attorney’s fees to the former wife. According to the trial judge, the “main” reason for its ruling was that the former wife’s attorney was her second husband, from whom she was divorced in 2002. The trial court was concerned that the obligation for fees was not a “legitimate debt” and that the former wife would “not be ultimately responsible” for the fees. This was not a valid basis to deny all fees. See Love v. Love, 370 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (stating, in a divorce case, that “[a]s to an award of attorney’s fees, we see no reasonable basis on which to distinguish a client of a Legal Aid Society from one who retains private counsel”).

The case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the request for attorney’s fees under the principles of Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment denying all attorney’s fees to the former wife. According to the trial judge, the “main” reason for its ruling was that the former wife’s attorney was her second husband, from whom she was divorced in 2002. The trial court was concerned that the obligation for fees was not a “legitimate debt” and that the former wife would “not be ultimately responsible” for the fees. This was not a valid basis to deny all fees. See Love v. Love, 370 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (stating, in a divorce case, that “[a]s to an award of attorney’s fees, we see no reasonable basis on which to distinguish a client of a Legal Aid Society from one who retains private counsel”).

The case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the request for attorney’s fees under the principles of Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 So. 2d 523, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6989, 2004 WL 1103931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altman-v-altman-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack