Zahringer v. Zahringer

813 So. 2d 181, 2002 WL 429274
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 20, 2002
Docket4D01-364
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 813 So. 2d 181 (Zahringer v. Zahringer) 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
Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181, 2002 WL 429274 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

813 So.2d 181 (2002)

George ZAHRINGER, Appellant,
v.
Celia ZAHRINGER, Appellee.

No. 4D01-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 20, 2002.
Rehearing Denied April 23, 2002.

*182 Martin L. Haines, III and Mark I. Frumkes of Martin L. Haines, III, Chartered, North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jorge M. Cestero of Sasser, Cestero & Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STONE, J.

George Zahringer (former husband) appeals a judgment awarding Lelia Zahringer (former wife) reimbursement for the former husband's share of certain educational and medical expenses incurred on behalf of the parties' children and ordering payment of the former wife's attorney's fees. We reverse the order directing payment of the attorney's fees; as to all other issues raised, we affirm.

Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1999), provides for an order for payment of attorney's fees "after considering the financial resources of both parties." It is not enough for a party to demonstrate the adverse party's ability to pay; the party seeking payment of fees must also show a need. See Carlson v. Carlson, 719 So.2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Firestone v. Firestone, 704 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Worthington v. Harty, 677 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

The trial court record supports a finding that the former husband has the ability to pay the attorney's fees. However, no evidence of the former wife's need for reimbursement of fees was introduced here. In fact, the record indicates that she shares in the former husband's high income and that the original settlement agreement between the parties incorporated in the order of dissolution did not provide for his payment of her attorney's fees.

Accordingly, we reverse the order with respect to payment of attorney's fees and remand.

KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

PHILLIP RODOLPH, SR. v. BETTY A. RODOLPH
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
JEREMY OFFICE v. SHERRY OFFICE
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
ROBERT W. BAUCHMAN v. BERTA BAUCHMAN
253 So. 3d 1143 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Gunn v. Ubbels
101 So. 3d 420 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Phillips v. Ford
68 So. 3d 257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Bohner v. Bohner
997 So. 2d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Alpha v. Alpha
885 So. 2d 1023 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
813 So. 2d 181, 2002 WL 429274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zahringer-v-zahringer-fladistctapp-2002.