From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelly v. Kelly

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 15, 1986
491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

finding that "trial court should have awarded her an attorney's fee" because the former wife had a substantially smaller income than the former husband, modest liquid assets, and would be in a far worse financial position than the former husband should she have to pay her own fees

Summary of this case from Schutt v. Schutt

Opinion

No. BJ-289.

July 15, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Leon County, William L. Gary, J.

Anthony L. Bajoczky, and Patricia B. Fournier, of Barrett Bajoczky, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Keith J. Kinderman, Tallahassee, for appellee.


This is an appeal by the former wife from a final judgment of dissolution. She contests the trial court's division of marital property and the failure of the court to award her an attorney's fee. We affirm as to the first point and reverse as to the second.

Although evidence was conflicting on numerous issues regarding the property valuation and ownership, we are satisfied that the evidence is susceptible to the conclusion reached by the trial court that the property was equitably divided. Only if no reasonable person could consider the trial court's division equitable should we reverse. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1985).

However, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife an attorney's fee. The wife has a substantially smaller income than the husband. The majority of her property award does not become liquid until the marital home is sold. Without liquid assets, she is in a substantially worse financial position in the short run than the husband. The trial court should have awarded her an attorney's fee. See Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); O'Steen v. O'Steen, 478 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore remand to the trial court to award the wife at least one-half of her attorney's fee, the final amount to be determined by the trial court which is authorized to conduct further proceedings for such purpose.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with instructions.

MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kelly v. Kelly

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 15, 1986
491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

finding that "trial court should have awarded her an attorney's fee" because the former wife had a substantially smaller income than the former husband, modest liquid assets, and would be in a far worse financial position than the former husband should she have to pay her own fees

Summary of this case from Schutt v. Schutt

finding abuse of discretion in failing to award attorney's fee where wife had substantially smaller income than husband, the majority of her assets would not become liquid until marital residence was sold, and without liquid assets she would, for the short run, be in a substantially worse financial position than her husband

Summary of this case from Martin v. Martin

reversing denial of a fee award to a spouse with a non-liquid asset award and income substantially smaller that the other spouse

Summary of this case from Kopel v. Bernardez-Kopel
Case details for

Kelly v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA (McGEACHY) KELLY, APPELLANT, v. RONALD REUBEN KELLY, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jul 15, 1986

Citations

491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Schutt v. Schutt

"Where the parties' income disparity is substantial, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a request…

Rhoden v. Rhoden

The record does not reflect that either party had substantially greater need, ability to pay, or liquid…