Waters v. Waters

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waters v. Waters

461 So. 2d 976, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2632, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16272

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

DocketNo. AY-243

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 461 So. 2d 976 (Waters v. Waters) 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

Waters v. Waters, 461 So. 2d 976, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2632, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16272 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in equitably distributing the parties’ marital assets. See Cortina v. Cortina, 461 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1984). We do hold, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to the wife when the record clearly shows that she has at least equal, if not greater, ability to pay those fees and does not require the husband’s assistance to provide herself with competent legal counsel. Cor-tina; Grundman v. Grundman, 448 So.2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). As was recognized by the court in McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So.2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983):

After making a truly equitable distribution of marital assets it is inequitable to diminish the assets awarded either party by requiring one party to pay the litigation costs of the other where each party has substantially equal ability to pay their own costs and expenses.

Id., at 62.

The final judgment is reversed as to the award of attorney’s fees, but affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in equitably distributing the parties’ marital assets. See Cortina v. Cortina, 461 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1984). We do hold, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to the wife when the record clearly shows that she has at least equal, if not greater, ability to pay those fees and does not require the husband’s assistance to provide herself with competent legal counsel. Cor-tina; Grundman v. Grundman, 448 So.2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). As was recognized by the court in McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So.2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983):

After making a truly equitable distribution of marital assets it is inequitable to diminish the assets awarded either party by requiring one party to pay the litigation costs of the other where each party has substantially equal ability to pay their own costs and expenses.

Id., at 62.

The final judgment is reversed as to the award of attorney’s fees, but affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 So. 2d 976, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2632, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-waters-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack