Rubin v. Rubin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubin v. Rubin

624 So. 2d 366, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9438

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 1993

DocketNos. 93-65, 92-1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 624 So. 2d 366 (Rubin v. Rubin) 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

Rubin v. Rubin, 624 So. 2d 366, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9438 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities, or in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Larrauri v. Larrauri, 584 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all respects except for paragraph number 12 determining that the wife is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse that portion of the final judgment, and reverse the order awarding the wife fees and costs. See Garrett v. Garrett, 559 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to wife improper where financial status of wife after award of alimony and equitable distribution of assets left parties with substantially equal resources).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities, or in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Larrauri v. Larrauri, 584 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all respects except for paragraph number 12 determining that the wife is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse that portion of the final judgment, and reverse the order awarding the wife fees and costs. See Garrett v. Garrett, 559 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to wife improper where financial status of wife after award of alimony and equitable distribution of assets left parties with substantially equal resources).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 So. 2d 366, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-rubin-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack