Chadbourne v. Chadbourne

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chadbourne v. Chadbourne

146 So. 3d 75, 2014 WL 4057360, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-0039

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 So. 3d 75 (Chadbourne v. Chadbourne) 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

Chadbourne v. Chadbourne, 146 So. 3d 75, 2014 WL 4057360, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12659 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Caroline Bell Chadbourne appeals a final judgment granting dissolution of marriage raising issues relating to equitable distribution, alimony, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm on all issues except the trial court’s denial of her attorneys’ fees and costs, which we reverse.

The husband left the 26-year marriage with a net worth of $17 million while the wife left with under $1 million. To require her to pay the remaining balance of her attorneys’ fees, about $200,000, would require an “inequitable diminution” of her [76]*76equitable distribution award. Conlan v. Conlan, 43 So.3d 931, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Given the significant disparity in wealth, her demonstrated need, and the husband’s clear ability to pay, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the wife’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Duncan-Osiyemi v. Osiyemi, 117 So.3d 882, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing a denial of the wife’s request for attorneys’ fees where there existed a significant income disparity and she would have to deplete her equitable distribution in order to pay the fees); Kelly v. Kelly, 925 So.2d 364, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (mandating a husband who had a net worth of $12.6 million to pay the wife’s attorneys’ fees where she left the marriage with $3 million, citing the husband’s “far superior financial posture”).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Caroline Bell Chadbourne appeals a final judgment granting dissolution of marriage raising issues relating to equitable distribution, alimony, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm on all issues except the trial court’s denial of her attorneys’ fees and costs, which we reverse.

The husband left the 26-year marriage with a net worth of $17 million while the wife left with under $1 million. To require her to pay the remaining balance of her attorneys’ fees, about $200,000, would require an “inequitable diminution” of her [76]*76equitable distribution award. Conlan v. Conlan, 43 So.3d 931, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Given the significant disparity in wealth, her demonstrated need, and the husband’s clear ability to pay, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the wife’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Duncan-Osiyemi v. Osiyemi, 117 So.3d 882, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing a denial of the wife’s request for attorneys’ fees where there existed a significant income disparity and she would have to deplete her equitable distribution in order to pay the fees); Kelly v. Kelly, 925 So.2d 364, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (mandating a husband who had a net worth of $12.6 million to pay the wife’s attorneys’ fees where she left the marriage with $3 million, citing the husband’s “far superior financial posture”).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 75, 2014 WL 4057360, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadbourne-v-chadbourne-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack