Brown v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. Brown

572 So. 2d 535, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9167, 1990 WL 195820

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-02863

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 535 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 572 So. 2d 535, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9167, 1990 WL 195820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Herman H. Brown seeks review of the trial court’s second amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage with regard to distribution of marital assets, alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm the distribution of marital assets and the award of permanent alimony, but reverse the award of attorney’s fees to the former wife.

The trial court’s distribution of marital assets and award of permanent alimony to the wife was reasonable and was not an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Should there be a change in circumstances, Mr. Brown may seek modification of the alimony award. Canakaris; Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

In this ease, the distribution of assets was equal or, if unequal, it was unequal in favor of the former wife. This, in addition to the award of permanent alimony left her with ample resources to pay her attorney’s fees. An award of attorney’s fees to the wife under these circumstances is an abuse of discretion. Ball v. Ball, 554 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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