Segovis v. Anderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Segovis v. Anderson

686 So. 2d 757, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 165, 1997 WL 24674

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

DocketNo. 96-569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 So. 2d 757 (Segovis v. Anderson) 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

Segovis v. Anderson, 686 So. 2d 757, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 165, 1997 WL 24674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Sharen Segovis, challenges a final order which terminated the former husband’s alimony obligation and denied the former wife’s request for attorney’s fees. We find that the former husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances which was not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; therefore, we reverse the order as to the termination of permanent alimony. Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla.1992). We also find that the trial court erred in denying the former wife’s attorney’s fees in light of the wide disparity of incomes of the parties. Nowell v. Nowell, 634 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We, therefore, reverse the order and remand for the trial court to reinstate the [758]*758permanent alimony and to determine the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to the former wife.

BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Sharen Segovis, challenges a final order which terminated the former husband’s alimony obligation and denied the former wife’s request for attorney’s fees. We find that the former husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances which was not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; therefore, we reverse the order as to the termination of permanent alimony. Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla.1992). We also find that the trial court erred in denying the former wife’s attorney’s fees in light of the wide disparity of incomes of the parties. Nowell v. Nowell, 634 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We, therefore, reverse the order and remand for the trial court to reinstate the [758]*758permanent alimony and to determine the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to the former wife.

BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 757, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 165, 1997 WL 24674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segovis-v-anderson-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack