Simmers v. Simmers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simmers v. Simmers

851 So. 2d 778, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10200, 2003 WL 21536914

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-3832

StatusPublished

This text of 851 So. 2d 778 (Simmers v. Simmers) 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

Simmers v. Simmers, 851 So. 2d 778, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10200, 2003 WL 21536914 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the wife’s challenge to the parties’ antenuptial agreement. We also affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the husband’s request for an award of attorney’s fees, finding that this issue is controlled by our recent decision in Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1400, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 21359585 (Fla. 2d DCA June 13, 2003). As we did in that case, we certify the following question as one of great public importance.

MAY THE PARTIES, BY AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, CONTRACT AWAY A FUTURE OBLIGATION TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND [779]*779COSTS DURING THE TERM OF THE MARRIAGE BY PROVIDING FOR PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS SEEKING TO ENFORCE OR PREVENT THE BREACH OF THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT?

Affirmed; question certified.

FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ„ and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the wife’s challenge to the parties’ antenuptial agreement. We also affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the husband’s request for an award of attorney’s fees, finding that this issue is controlled by our recent decision in Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1400, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 21359585 (Fla. 2d DCA June 13, 2003). As we did in that case, we certify the following question as one of great public importance.

MAY THE PARTIES, BY AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, CONTRACT AWAY A FUTURE OBLIGATION TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND [779]*779COSTS DURING THE TERM OF THE MARRIAGE BY PROVIDING FOR PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS SEEKING TO ENFORCE OR PREVENT THE BREACH OF THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT?

Affirmed; question certified.

FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ„ and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 So. 2d 778, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10200, 2003 WL 21536914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmers-v-simmers-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack