Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

518 So. 2d 284

518 So.2d 284

12 Fla.L.Weekly 2005

Booth v. Booth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 12, 1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-08-12

Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-08-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2014

5 state decisions

201987199020002010decided

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 →

FRANK, Judge.

¶1The ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s order asserting that an abuse of discretion occurred in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee awarded her. She also disputes the imposition upon her of responsibility for the payment of a portion of the fee.

¶2We find no basis for disturbing the amount of the fee granted the ex-wife. We do find, however, that the trial court erred in requiring the ex-husband to contribute only $900.00 to the ex-wife’s attorney’s fee which totaled $1,652.50. The evidence reveals that at the time of the final hearing the ex-husband’s income exceeded that of the ex-wife’s almost three-fold. The record demonstrates that the ex-husband is in a far better position to compensate the ex-wife’s counsel in the full amount of the fee. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

¶3We reverse that aspect of the trial court’s order which requires the ex-wife to pay part of her fee obligation and direct that the ex-husband satisfy the fee in the full amount. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, DAVID F., Associate Judge, concur.
/518/so2d/284 · .json · Public domain