Stapp v. Motta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stapp v. Motta

863 So. 2d 401, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19592, 2003 WL 23015068

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-0159

StatusPublished

This text of 863 So. 2d 401 (Stapp v. Motta) 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

Stapp v. Motta, 863 So. 2d 401, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19592, 2003 WL 23015068 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cecilia Stapp appeals an order granting modification of the alimony paid to her by her former husband, Albert J. Motta, Jr., appellee, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting modification and in refusing to award attorney’s fees to her. Given the substantial decrease in the income of Mr. Motta, which the trial court found was permanent, we affirm the order of modification. Mastromonico v. Mastromonico, 685 So.2d 74, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Notwithstanding the former husband’s decrease in income, the record reflects that there is a disparity in the parties’ respective income and ability to pay. Given this disparity, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the former wife’s petition for an award of at[402]*402torney’s fees. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997), Segovis v. Anderson, 686 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Nowell v. Nowell, 634 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Cecilia Stapp appeals an order granting modification of the alimony paid to her by her former husband, Albert J. Motta, Jr., appellee, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting modification and in refusing to award attorney’s fees to her. Given the substantial decrease in the income of Mr. Motta, which the trial court found was permanent, we affirm the order of modification. Mastromonico v. Mastromonico, 685 So.2d 74, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Notwithstanding the former husband’s decrease in income, the record reflects that there is a disparity in the parties’ respective income and ability to pay. Given this disparity, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the former wife’s petition for an award of at[402]*402torney’s fees. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997), Segovis v. Anderson, 686 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Nowell v. Nowell, 634 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 401, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19592, 2003 WL 23015068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stapp-v-motta-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack