Gray v. Gray

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gray v. Gray

362 So. 2d 294, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15936

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1978

DocketNo. 78-149

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 362 So. 2d 294 (Gray v. Gray) 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

Gray v. Gray, 362 So. 2d 294, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15936 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only point meriting discussion in this post-decretal interlocutory appeal of an order denying appellee/husband’s motion for modification of final judgment of dissolution is the trial court’s denial of appellant/wife’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Despite the fact that the record contains certain relevant information as to the financial resources of appellant and appellee in the form of their financial affidavits, the record is devoid of any affirmative showing that the trial court considered these affidavits as the basis for its order denying the wife’s attorney’s fees. Indeed, the order expressly based denial of attorney’s fees on the sole ground that “there existed a legitimate question for Court determination on the part of the husband in bringing his Motion for Modification of Final Judgment.”

Whether or not a legitimate question for court determination existed is not the appropriate standard for determining entitlement to attorney’s fees in dissolution and modification cases. The proper criterion is the relative financial resources of the parties. See Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1977).

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed only insofar as it denies appellant/wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and the cause is remanded for appropriate consideration and determination of this issue. In all other respects, the order appealed from is affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only point meriting discussion in this post-decretal interlocutory appeal of an order denying appellee/husband’s motion for modification of final judgment of dissolution is the trial court’s denial of appellant/wife’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Despite the fact that the record contains certain relevant information as to the financial resources of appellant and appellee in the form of their financial affidavits, the record is devoid of any affirmative showing that the trial court considered these affidavits as the basis for its order denying the wife’s attorney’s fees. Indeed, the order expressly based denial of attorney’s fees on the sole ground that “there existed a legitimate question for Court determination on the part of the husband in bringing his Motion for Modification of Final Judgment.”

Whether or not a legitimate question for court determination existed is not the appropriate standard for determining entitlement to attorney’s fees in dissolution and modification cases. The proper criterion is the relative financial resources of the parties. See Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1977).

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed only insofar as it denies appellant/wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and the cause is remanded for appropriate consideration and determination of this issue. In all other respects, the order appealed from is affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 So. 2d 294, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-gray-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack