Pifer v. Pifer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pifer v. Pifer

270 So. 2d 43, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1972

DocketNo. 72-208

StatusPublished

This text of 270 So. 2d 43 (Pifer v. Pifer) 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

Pifer v. Pifer, 270 So. 2d 43, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The amount ordered for support of these parties’ five children is not unreasonable, [44]*44but the award of attorney’s fees is predicated upon evidence which clearly takes into account work done by appellee’s lawyers on matters unrelated to the present case, and 'should be reconsidered by the trial judge. See Scanlon v. Scanlon, Fla.App. 1st 1963, 154 So.2d 899.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The amount ordered for support of these parties’ five children is not unreasonable, [44]*44but the award of attorney’s fees is predicated upon evidence which clearly takes into account work done by appellee’s lawyers on matters unrelated to the present case, and 'should be reconsidered by the trial judge. See Scanlon v. Scanlon, Fla.App. 1st 1963, 154 So.2d 899.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 So. 2d 43, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pifer-v-pifer-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack