Crispin v. Crispin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crispin v. Crispin

411 So. 2d 218, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19194

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 9, 1982·No. Nos. 81-755, 81-1573·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

From the record presented for review, we conclude that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court and, therefore, cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Additionally, contrary to appellant’s contention, the trial court did not, ipso facto, abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees in an amount less than the expert testimony offered by the appellant, notwithstanding that appellee offered no opposing expert testimony on that issue. Fatoiitis v. Fatolitis, 271 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

From the record presented for review, we conclude that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court and, therefore, cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Additionally, contrary to appellant’s contention, the trial court did not, ipso facto, abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees in an amount less than the expert testimony offered by the appellant, notwithstanding that appellee offered no opposing expert testimony on that issue. Fatoiitis v. Fatolitis, 271 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

Affirmed.

Crispin v. Crispin, 411 So. 2d 218, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19194 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

411 So. 2d 218 (Crispin v. Crispin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related