Golightly v. Golightly

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Golightly v. Golightly

934 So. 2d 489, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795, 2004 WL 2823176

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 2004

DocketNos. 3D03-1183, 3D03-1697

StatusPublished

This text of 934 So. 2d 489 (Golightly v. Golightly) 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

Golightly v. Golightly, 934 So. 2d 489, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795, 2004 WL 2823176 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying the former wife’s attorney’s fees motion. There is no record support for the trial court’s conclusion that the former wife’s defense to the former husband’s motion to modify custody “was raised mainly to frustrate or stall” the proceedings, Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997); Nash v. Nash, 624 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); the trial court denied the former husband’s motion after a full hearing. As the transcript of the fee motion hearing demonstrates, the former wife’s actions following the court’s denial of the modification motion were based on well-founded reasons. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine the fee issue based on need and ability to pay. Rosen.

We also reverse the guardian ad litem fee award, and remand for a determination based on the parties’ need and ability to pay. See Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying the former wife’s attorney’s fees motion. There is no record support for the trial court’s conclusion that the former wife’s defense to the former husband’s motion to modify custody “was raised mainly to frustrate or stall” the proceedings, Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997); Nash v. Nash, 624 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); the trial court denied the former husband’s motion after a full hearing. As the transcript of the fee motion hearing demonstrates, the former wife’s actions following the court’s denial of the modification motion were based on well-founded reasons. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine the fee issue based on need and ability to pay. Rosen.

We also reverse the guardian ad litem fee award, and remand for a determination based on the parties’ need and ability to pay. See Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 So. 2d 489, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18795, 2004 WL 2823176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golightly-v-golightly-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack