Hammad v. Hammad

146 So. 3d 532, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14200, 2014 WL 4471635
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 12, 2014·No. No. 5D14-577·Published

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

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

146 So. 3d 532 (Hammad v. Hammad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amal Crane v. Matthew Harrison Crane
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026