Booth v. Booth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Booth v. Booth

518 So. 2d 284, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2005, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9897, 1987 WL 566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2668

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 518 So. 2d 284 (Booth v. Booth) 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

Booth v. Booth, 518 So. 2d 284, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2005, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9897, 1987 WL 566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

The ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s order asserting that an abuse of discretion occurred in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee awarded her. She also disputes the imposition upon her of responsibility for the payment of a portion of the fee.

We find no basis for disturbing the amount of the fee granted the ex-wife. We do find, however, that the trial court erred in requiring the ex-husband to contribute only $900.00 to the ex-wife’s attorney’s fee which totaled $1,652.50. The evidence reveals that at the time of the final hearing the ex-husband’s income exceeded that of the ex-wife’s almost three-fold. The record demonstrates that the ex-husband is in a far better position to compensate the ex-wife’s counsel in the full amount of the fee. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We reverse that aspect of the trial court’s order which requires the ex-wife to pay part of her fee obligation and direct that the ex-husband satisfy the fee in the full amount. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, DAVID F., Associate Judge, concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

The ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s order asserting that an abuse of discretion occurred in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee awarded her. She also disputes the imposition upon her of responsibility for the payment of a portion of the fee.

We find no basis for disturbing the amount of the fee granted the ex-wife. We do find, however, that the trial court erred in requiring the ex-husband to contribute only $900.00 to the ex-wife’s attorney’s fee which totaled $1,652.50. The evidence reveals that at the time of the final hearing the ex-husband’s income exceeded that of the ex-wife’s almost three-fold. The record demonstrates that the ex-husband is in a far better position to compensate the ex-wife’s counsel in the full amount of the fee. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We reverse that aspect of the trial court’s order which requires the ex-wife to pay part of her fee obligation and direct that the ex-husband satisfy the fee in the full amount. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, DAVID F., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 284, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2005, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9897, 1987 WL 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-booth-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack