Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

485 So. 2d 855

485 So.2d 855

11 Fla.L.Weekly 670

Docket No. 84-2657.

Lewis v. Lewis

Richard E. LEWIS, Appellant, v. Brenda M. LEWIS, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 12, 1986.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-03-12

Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · Wenz v. Collings

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2012

6 state decisions

401986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Larry S. Hersch, Dade City, for appellant.

¶2Jack D. Hoogewind, Ridge Manor, for appellee.

¶3RYDER, Chief Judge.

¶4Richard E. Lewis appeals a supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The court's order gave the wife custody of the two minor children, the husband's one-half interest in the marital home, lump sum alimony, and attorney's fees. We affirm all aspects of the court's judgment except for the attorney's fees award.

¶5In affirming three of the husband's four points on appeal, we recognize that this is a close case. It is for that very reason that we decline to find the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding custody to the wife and in the division of the parties' marital property. Canakaris v. Canakaris,382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).

¶6However, we do find that the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the wife. The record amply reflects that the wife had the financial ability to obtain competent legal counsel and, by doing so, was not in danger of suffering an inequitable diminution of her economic status or security. See Wenz v. Collings,*856417 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment which ordered the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees. In this matter, the wife must be responsible for the payment of her attorney's fees.

¶7Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

¶8GRIMES and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

/485/so2d/855 · .json · Public domain