Hazen v. Hazen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hazen v. Hazen

476 So. 2d 798, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2377, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1985

DocketNo. 85-797

StatusPublished

This text of 476 So. 2d 798 (Hazen v. Hazen) 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

Hazen v. Hazen, 476 So. 2d 798, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2377, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution which involved neither alimony nor equitable distribution. In view of the husband’s net worth ($118,000) and his anticipated annual income ($14,000-$15,000) as compared to the wife’s net worth (negative balance) and her anticipated annual income ($12,000), we hold that the court abused its discretion in awarding the wife child support of only $40 per week. See Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Johnson v. Johnson, 367 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We direct that the court reconsider this figure and order child support in an amount not less than $65 per week. Since the wife had no money for attorney’s fees, we also direct that the court order the husband to pay her attorney a reasonable fee. See Peters v. Peters, 366 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution which involved neither alimony nor equitable distribution. In view of the husband’s net worth ($118,000) and his anticipated annual income ($14,000-$15,000) as compared to the wife’s net worth (negative balance) and her anticipated annual income ($12,000), we hold that the court abused its discretion in awarding the wife child support of only $40 per week. See Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Johnson v. Johnson, 367 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We direct that the court reconsider this figure and order child support in an amount not less than $65 per week. Since the wife had no money for attorney’s fees, we also direct that the court order the husband to pay her attorney a reasonable fee. See Peters v. Peters, 366 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 So. 2d 798, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2377, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazen-v-hazen-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack