Hammad v. Hammad

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammad v. Hammad

146 So. 3d 532, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14200, 2014 WL 4471635

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2014

DocketNo. 5D14-577

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 3d 532 (Hammad v. Hammad) 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

Hammad v. Hammad, 146 So. 3d 532, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14200, 2014 WL 4471635 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ihab Hammad (Former Husband) appeals a final judgment that dissolved his marriage to Thamina Hammad (Former Wife). On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Former Wife durational alimony and ordering Former Husband to pay seventy-five percent of Former Wife’s attorney’s [533]*533fees -without making the requisite findings of fact. Regarding the alimony award, Former Wife concedes error because the final judgment lacks the factual findings required under section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2013). See Roth v. Cortina, 59 So.3d 163, 165-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Likewise, Former Wife concedes error as to the award of attorney’s fees, again acknowledging that the final judgment is devoid of factual findings regarding Former Wife’s financial need and Former Husband’s ability to pay. See Allen v. Allen, 114 So.3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ihab Hammad (Former Husband) appeals a final judgment that dissolved his marriage to Thamina Hammad (Former Wife). On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Former Wife durational alimony and ordering Former Husband to pay seventy-five percent of Former Wife’s attorney’s [533]*533fees -without making the requisite findings of fact. Regarding the alimony award, Former Wife concedes error because the final judgment lacks the factual findings required under section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2013). See Roth v. Cortina, 59 So.3d 163, 165-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Likewise, Former Wife concedes error as to the award of attorney’s fees, again acknowledging that the final judgment is devoid of factual findings regarding Former Wife’s financial need and Former Husband’s ability to pay. See Allen v. Allen, 114 So.3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 532, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14200, 2014 WL 4471635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammad-v-hammad-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack