Palmisano v. Palmisano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palmisano v. Palmisano

700 So. 2d 189, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11859, 1997 WL 637633

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 1997

DocketNo. 96-04427

StatusPublished

This text of 700 So. 2d 189 (Palmisano v. Palmisano) 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

Palmisano v. Palmisano, 700 So. 2d 189, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11859, 1997 WL 637633 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant/husband challenges the final judgment of dissolution awarding alimony to appellee/wife. We find no merit in the three issues raised by the husband on direct appeal and therefore affirm. We do, however, find merit in one of the six issues raised by the wife on cross-appeal regarding the trial court’s failure to award her attorney’s fees and costs. It is clear from the record that the husband is in a better financial position to pay attorney’s fees and costs than is the wife. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the judgment requiring each party to pay their own attorney’s fees and costs and direct that on remand the court determine what portion of a reasonable fee the husband be required to pay on behalf of the wife.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant/husband challenges the final judgment of dissolution awarding alimony to appellee/wife. We find no merit in the three issues raised by the husband on direct appeal and therefore affirm. We do, however, find merit in one of the six issues raised by the wife on cross-appeal regarding the trial court’s failure to award her attorney’s fees and costs. It is clear from the record that the husband is in a better financial position to pay attorney’s fees and costs than is the wife. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the judgment requiring each party to pay their own attorney’s fees and costs and direct that on remand the court determine what portion of a reasonable fee the husband be required to pay on behalf of the wife.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 189, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11859, 1997 WL 637633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmisano-v-palmisano-fladistctapp-1997.