Halberg v. Halberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Halberg v. Halberg

665 So. 2d 278, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 1995 WL 700350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2572

StatusPublished

This text of 665 So. 2d 278 (Halberg v. Halberg) 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

Halberg v. Halberg, 665 So. 2d 278, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 1995 WL 700350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joan Halberg, appeals the trial court’s downward modification of alimony and denial of attorney’s fees. We find no error in the modification of alimony and affirm. We reverse on the issue of attorney’s fees.

In modification proceedings, courts must consider the relative financial positions of each party in considering requests for attorney’s fees. See § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). In light of the parties’ agreement, and where appellee petitioned for modification, we find appellant is entitled to attorney’s fees based upon her demonstrated need and appellee’s far superior financial position. See Thrift v. Thrift, 632 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joan Halberg, appeals the trial court’s downward modification of alimony and denial of attorney’s fees. We find no error in the modification of alimony and affirm. We reverse on the issue of attorney’s fees.

In modification proceedings, courts must consider the relative financial positions of each party in considering requests for attorney’s fees. See § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). In light of the parties’ agreement, and where appellee petitioned for modification, we find appellant is entitled to attorney’s fees based upon her demonstrated need and appellee’s far superior financial position. See Thrift v. Thrift, 632 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 278, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 1995 WL 700350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halberg-v-halberg-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack