Patnode v. Patnode

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Patnode v. Patnode

536 So. 2d 1064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2447, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4830, 1988 WL 115956

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1988

DocketNo. 88-216

StatusPublished

This text of 536 So. 2d 1064 (Patnode v. Patnode) 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

Patnode v. Patnode, 536 So. 2d 1064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2447, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4830, 1988 WL 115956 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the entire record in this matter, we construe the trial court’s order concerning attorney’s fees to be a determination that the sum of $3000 was a reason[1065]*1065able attorney’s fee for legal services provided to the appellant subsequent to a temporary order concerning fees. This construction results in a determination that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the entire proceeding was $6500 and that the appellee was required to pay $3500 of that amount. As so construed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, affirm. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the entire record in this matter, we construe the trial court’s order concerning attorney’s fees to be a determination that the sum of $3000 was a reason[1065]*1065able attorney’s fee for legal services provided to the appellant subsequent to a temporary order concerning fees. This construction results in a determination that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the entire proceeding was $6500 and that the appellee was required to pay $3500 of that amount. As so construed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, affirm. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 So. 2d 1064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2447, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4830, 1988 WL 115956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patnode-v-patnode-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack