Miller v. Miller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. Miller

661 So. 2d 381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10683, 1995 WL 597430

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1995

DocketNo. 94-4318

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 381 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 661 So. 2d 381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10683, 1995 WL 597430 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order requiring Benjamin K. Miller (husband) to pay $250 monthly toward his child and spousal support arrearages, denying Deborah Miller’s (wife) motion for contempt, and denying the wife’s request for an attorney’s fee.

The trial judge denied the wife’s request ■for an attorney’s fee based on the fact that the husband was not found in contempt. It was error to deny a fee for this reason. Foster v. Foster, 528 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (‘While a noneomplying spouse’s contempt may be taken into account in assessing attorney’s fees, the parties’ need and ability to pay still remain among the factors to be considered in establishing the predicate for such an award.”); see also Ger[382]*382onemus v. Geronemus, 599 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So.2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 243 (Fla.1988).

We therefore reverse the portion of the order below denying an attorney’s fee and remand for consistent proceedings. The order is affirmed in all other respects.

ERVIN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order requiring Benjamin K. Miller (husband) to pay $250 monthly toward his child and spousal support arrearages, denying Deborah Miller’s (wife) motion for contempt, and denying the wife’s request for an attorney’s fee.

The trial judge denied the wife’s request ■for an attorney’s fee based on the fact that the husband was not found in contempt. It was error to deny a fee for this reason. Foster v. Foster, 528 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (‘While a noneomplying spouse’s contempt may be taken into account in assessing attorney’s fees, the parties’ need and ability to pay still remain among the factors to be considered in establishing the predicate for such an award.”); see also Ger[382]*382onemus v. Geronemus, 599 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So.2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 243 (Fla.1988).

We therefore reverse the portion of the order below denying an attorney’s fee and remand for consistent proceedings. The order is affirmed in all other respects.

ERVIN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10683, 1995 WL 597430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack