Portman v. Horwitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Portman v. Horwitz

143 So. 3d 973, 2014 WL 3302757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10507

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

DocketNo. 3D13-143

StatusPublished

This text of 143 So. 3d 973 (Portman v. Horwitz) 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

Portman v. Horwitz, 143 So. 3d 973, 2014 WL 3302757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10507 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Scott Portman, as Assignee and Residuary Beneficiary of the Estate of Denise Reale f/k/a Denise Horwitz (“the former wife”), appeals the portion of the trial court’s order denying the former wife’s motion for attorney’s fees incurred in unsuccessfully pursuing a modification of her alimony award. Donald Allen Horwitz (“the former husband”) cross-appeals the portion of the trial court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2013). Because we find that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion as to either ruling, we affirm the order as it relates to both the former wife’s and the former husband’s motions for attorney’s fees.

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Scott Portman, as Assignee and Residuary Beneficiary of the Estate of Denise Reale f/k/a Denise Horwitz (“the former wife”), appeals the portion of the trial court’s order denying the former wife’s motion for attorney’s fees incurred in unsuccessfully pursuing a modification of her alimony award. Donald Allen Horwitz (“the former husband”) cross-appeals the portion of the trial court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2013). Because we find that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion as to either ruling, we affirm the order as it relates to both the former wife’s and the former husband’s motions for attorney’s fees.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 So. 3d 973, 2014 WL 3302757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portman-v-horwitz-fladistctapp-2014.