Reek v. Reek

303 So. 2d 677
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 6, 1974·No. No. 74-363·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, appellant’s brief and appendix, the appellee having failed to provide this court with brief and appendix, and examination of the transcript of testimony before the trial court, it appears there was no evidence introduced on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Therefore, the chancellor erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to the appellee. See Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So.2d 34 (Fla.App. 1973); Cardillo v. Cardillo, 269 So.2d 773 (Fla. App. 1972); Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So.2d 420 (Fla.App.1965); Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So.2d 256 (Fla.App.1964). Accordingly, the award of attorneys’ fees is reversed and the cause remanded for the purpose of taking of testimony on the issue of '(attorneys’ fees. In all other respects, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part and remanded with directions.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

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

Reek v. Reek, 303 So. 2d 677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

303 So. 2d 677 (Reek v. Reek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guy v. Guy
370 So. 2d 60 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Segal v. Segal
353 So. 2d 894 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Demaso v. Demaso
345 So. 2d 391 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)