Williams v. Williams

147 So. 3d 1109, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15372, 2014 WL 4929108
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2973
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 3, 2014·No. No. 5D13-3559·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Williams, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution and an order entered on his timely motion for rehearing. We affirm- in most respects, but agree with Appellant that the trial court, erred by awarding attorney’s fees to the Appellee without making the findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), and where the evidence did not support a finding that Appellant had an ability to pay Appellee’s fees. The trial court also erred by awarding the dependency tax exemption for the child to Appellee without adequate explanation, when she was not working. Accordingly, we affirm in part but reverse the attorney’s fees award and dependency tax exemption ruling. On remand, the trial court shall strike its award of attorney’s fees1 to Appellee, and readdress the dependency exemption for the minor child.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, LAMBERT, JJ., and WOODARD, J.L., III, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Williams v. Williams, 147 So. 3d 1109, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15372, 2014 WL 4929108 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

147 So. 3d 1109 (Williams v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kranz v. Kranz
737 So. 2d 1198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
472 So. 2d 1145 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)