Davids v. Davids

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davids v. Davids

718 So. 2d 1263, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1998 WL 698783

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1998

DocketNo. 97-04573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 1263 (Davids v. Davids) 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

Davids v. Davids, 718 So. 2d 1263, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1998 WL 698783 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

We affirm the order on supplemental complaint for modification in all respects except the denial of the wife’s claim for attorneys’ fees. The husband cites Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and argues that attorneys’ fees were properly denied as the parties have a substantially equal ability to pay. This argument is unavailing as the wife’s fee claim has a contractual basis. Specifically, the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution, states that each party would be responsible for their attorneys’ fees, “[pjrovided, however, that in the event of litigation arising as the result of a breach of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to award the wife that portion of the attorneys’ fees and court costs she incurred in this case pursuing enforcement of the husband’s alimony obligation.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

QUINCE, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

We affirm the order on supplemental complaint for modification in all respects except the denial of the wife’s claim for attorneys’ fees. The husband cites Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and argues that attorneys’ fees were properly denied as the parties have a substantially equal ability to pay. This argument is unavailing as the wife’s fee claim has a contractual basis. Specifically, the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution, states that each party would be responsible for their attorneys’ fees, “[pjrovided, however, that in the event of litigation arising as the result of a breach of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to award the wife that portion of the attorneys’ fees and court costs she incurred in this case pursuing enforcement of the husband’s alimony obligation.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

QUINCE, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 1263, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1998 WL 698783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davids-v-davids-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack