Clerc v. Clerc

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clerc v. Clerc

712 So. 2d 1249, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8011, 1998 WL 349530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2621

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 1249 (Clerc v. Clerc) 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

Clerc v. Clerc, 712 So. 2d 1249, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8011, 1998 WL 349530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the lower court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife.

After careful consideration of the record and briefs, we find that while the non-marital assets of the former husband were relevant in determining ability to pay attorney’s fees, they were generally offset by the large amount of marital debt which the former husband had to- assume.

Given the excess marital debt and considering that the former husband’s monthly income was essentially depleted by child support and alimony, the lower court should have ordered the parties to pay their own attorney’s fees. Mauck v. Mauck, 702 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Boyett v. Boyett, 683 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), approved, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997); Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Zulywitz v. Zulywitz, 473 So .2d 275, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, the August 13, 1996 order on attorney’s fees is reversed.

REVERSED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the lower court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife.

After careful consideration of the record and briefs, we find that while the non-marital assets of the former husband were relevant in determining ability to pay attorney’s fees, they were generally offset by the large amount of marital debt which the former husband had to- assume.

Given the excess marital debt and considering that the former husband’s monthly income was essentially depleted by child support and alimony, the lower court should have ordered the parties to pay their own attorney’s fees. Mauck v. Mauck, 702 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Boyett v. Boyett, 683 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), approved, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997); Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Zulywitz v. Zulywitz, 473 So .2d 275, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, the August 13, 1996 order on attorney’s fees is reversed.

REVERSED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 1249, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8011, 1998 WL 349530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clerc-v-clerc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack