Taplin v. Taplin
476 So. 2d 770, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2349, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16318
Opinion
We are convinced that the wife’s application for additional temporary attorney’s fees was denied as a matter of the trial court’s discretion — rather than because of a belief, contrary to Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972), that none could be awarded under the circumstances as a matter of law. The order is affirmed on the ground that no abuse of that discretion has been demonstrated. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Muhlrad v. Muhlrad, 375 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Taplin v. Taplin, 476 So. 2d 770, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2349, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16318 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).
476 So. 2d 770 (Taplin v. Taplin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Canakaris v. Canakaris
382 So. 2d 1197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Muhlrad v. Muhlrad
375 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Belcher v. Belcher
271 So. 2d 7 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)