Carter v. Carter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carter v. Carter

640 So. 2d 1171, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6828, 1994 WL 328529

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 1994

DocketNo. 93-387

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 1171 (Carter v. Carter) 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

Carter v. Carter, 640 So. 2d 1171, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6828, 1994 WL 328529 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Lillian Jennile Carter appeals from a post-dissolution order denying her costs and attorney’s fees following her former husband’s unsuccessful attempt to modify the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal that the appellant’s net monthly income is $775.34, and the appellee’s net monthly income is $706.02, when he has work available. (No work was available when his affidavit was prepared.) In view of the relatively equal financial resources of the parties, we cannot say that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny the appellant’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lillian Jennile Carter appeals from a post-dissolution order denying her costs and attorney’s fees following her former husband’s unsuccessful attempt to modify the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal that the appellant’s net monthly income is $775.34, and the appellee’s net monthly income is $706.02, when he has work available. (No work was available when his affidavit was prepared.) In view of the relatively equal financial resources of the parties, we cannot say that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny the appellant’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1171, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6828, 1994 WL 328529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-carter-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack