Felker v. Felker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Felker v. Felker

540 So. 2d 927, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1648, 1989 WL 30810

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1953

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 927 (Felker v. Felker) 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

Felker v. Felker, 540 So. 2d 927, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1648, 1989 WL 30810 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the former wife from a final order denying her motion for attorney’s fees in a marriage dissolution action. Because (1) both parties are employed and have relatively equal financial circumstances after the former husband’s child support and mortgage obligations under the final judgment are deducted, and (2) the marital assets of the parties were otherwise equally divided, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that both parties should pay his or her own attorney’s fees and in entering the order under review. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Cortina v. Cortina, 461 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1985); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bullard v. Bullard, 380 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the former wife from a final order denying her motion for attorney’s fees in a marriage dissolution action. Because (1) both parties are employed and have relatively equal financial circumstances after the former husband’s child support and mortgage obligations under the final judgment are deducted, and (2) the marital assets of the parties were otherwise equally divided, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that both parties should pay his or her own attorney’s fees and in entering the order under review. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Cortina v. Cortina, 461 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1985); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bullard v. Bullard, 380 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 927, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1648, 1989 WL 30810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felker-v-felker-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack