Barnette v. Barnette

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnette v. Barnette

658 So. 2d 1246, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8867, 1995 WL 497295

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1833

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 1246 (Barnette v. Barnette) 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

Barnette v. Barnette, 658 So. 2d 1246, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8867, 1995 WL 497295 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After filing a petition for dissolution, the parties executed a settlement agreement; however, former wife subsequently asserted that she was entitled to reject one provision of the agreement, involving the division of the equity in the marital home, and that the equity should be allocated differently than was provided for in the agreement. The trial court enforced the provision and assessed attorney’s fees against the wife solely because of her refusal to accept the husband’s offer to settle, which was consistent with the provision in the agreement that the court enforced. We affirm the court’s enforcement of the agreement, but reverse the attorney’s fee award because it was not based on any provision of the agreement or any statute. The court did not award fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993), and in any event, fees could not have been justified on that ground.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

DELL, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After filing a petition for dissolution, the parties executed a settlement agreement; however, former wife subsequently asserted that she was entitled to reject one provision of the agreement, involving the division of the equity in the marital home, and that the equity should be allocated differently than was provided for in the agreement. The trial court enforced the provision and assessed attorney’s fees against the wife solely because of her refusal to accept the husband’s offer to settle, which was consistent with the provision in the agreement that the court enforced. We affirm the court’s enforcement of the agreement, but reverse the attorney’s fee award because it was not based on any provision of the agreement or any statute. The court did not award fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993), and in any event, fees could not have been justified on that ground.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

DELL, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 1246, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8867, 1995 WL 497295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnette-v-barnette-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack