Luke v. Luke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Luke v. Luke

76 So. 3d 388, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 69

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 2011

DocketNo. 1D11-0021

StatusPublished

This text of 76 So. 3d 388 (Luke v. Luke) 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

Luke v. Luke, 76 So. 3d 388, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 69 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas L. Luke, the former husband, challenges an order which grants modification of his alimony obligation to Sylvia J. Luke, the former wife, and which assesses attorney’s fees against him.

The former husband sought a modification of his alimony obligation on the ground that his businesses have floundered since dissolution and, as a result, he is no longer able to pay the alimony awarded to the former wife. The trial court, following hearing, granted the petition to modify, but did not reduce the former husband’s alimony payment to the extent he requested. We affirm the modification without further discussion because such modification was not an abuse of discretion given the trial court’s findings of fact. See McQuaig v. McQuaig, 36 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

However, with respect to the award of attorney’s fees, we are compelled to re[389]*389verse because the trial court did not indicate in the order under review that it considered any factors to determine whether the amount of fees or hours expended were reasonable. Chaney v. Fife, 18 So.3d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Therefore, the cause is remanded for the trial court to make such findings.

AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas L. Luke, the former husband, challenges an order which grants modification of his alimony obligation to Sylvia J. Luke, the former wife, and which assesses attorney’s fees against him.

The former husband sought a modification of his alimony obligation on the ground that his businesses have floundered since dissolution and, as a result, he is no longer able to pay the alimony awarded to the former wife. The trial court, following hearing, granted the petition to modify, but did not reduce the former husband’s alimony payment to the extent he requested. We affirm the modification without further discussion because such modification was not an abuse of discretion given the trial court’s findings of fact. See McQuaig v. McQuaig, 36 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

However, with respect to the award of attorney’s fees, we are compelled to re[389]*389verse because the trial court did not indicate in the order under review that it considered any factors to determine whether the amount of fees or hours expended were reasonable. Chaney v. Fife, 18 So.3d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Therefore, the cause is remanded for the trial court to make such findings.

AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 388, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-v-luke-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack