¶1We 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).
476 So. 2d 770
476 So.2d 770
10 Fla.L.Weekly 2349
Taplin v. Taplin
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 15, 1985
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-10-15
Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 271 So. 2d 7 - Belcher v. Belcher · Muhlrad v. Muhlrad
Decided 1985-10-15