Tanck v. Tanck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tanck v. Tanck

675 So. 2d 1039, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6918, 1996 WL 365880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2468

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 675 So. 2d 1039 (Tanck v. Tanck) 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

Tanck v. Tanck, 675 So. 2d 1039, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6918, 1996 WL 365880 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination in all respects but one. Based on the disparity of the incomes and financial positions of the parties, we determine that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order the husband to pay 100 percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. We, therefore, reverse that portion of the final judgment, and direct that the husband be required to pay all of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.

We also would again remind the trial court that it is inappropriate for the trial court to chastise and doggedly question a party as to issues adequately addressed on cross-examination. See Nicholson v. Nicholson, 671 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination in all respects but one. Based on the disparity of the incomes and financial positions of the parties, we determine that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order the husband to pay 100 percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. We, therefore, reverse that portion of the final judgment, and direct that the husband be required to pay all of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.

We also would again remind the trial court that it is inappropriate for the trial court to chastise and doggedly question a party as to issues adequately addressed on cross-examination. See Nicholson v. Nicholson, 671 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 1039, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6918, 1996 WL 365880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanck-v-tanck-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack