Klauser v. Klauser

4 Citing cases

  1. Lauro v. Lauro

    2004 CA 2252 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the award of attorney's fees on appeal are generally one-half of the amount awarded in trial court

    8. Any other factor which in equity should be considered.Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 366-67 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). ¶ 23.

  2. Layton v. Layton

    181 So. 3d 275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times

    “As long as the chancellor follows [Armstrong 's] general standard, the amount of the award is largely within his discretion.” Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 366 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (quoting Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss.1990)). The chancellor's underlying factual findings will not be set aside unless “clearly erroneous.”

  3. Ilsley v. Ilsley

    160 So. 3d 1177 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    ¶ 19. While it is true that there is caselaw supporting Susan's position that she presented sufficient evidence of her inability to pay her fees based on her unemployment, a lack of a separate estate, the award of few liquid assets, and the shortfall already existing between her expenses and income, we note that “an award of attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the [chancery] court[.]” Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 368 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1282 ). “Absent [an] abuse of discretion, the [chancery court]'s decision in such matters will generally be upheld.” Id.

  4. Ilsley v. Ilsley

    2013-CA-00459-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013)

    While it is true that there is caselaw supporting Susan's position that she presented sufficient evidence of her inability to pay her fees based on her unemployment, a lack of a separate estate, the award of few liquid assets, and the shortfall already existing between her expenses and income, we note that "an award of attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the [chancery] court[.]" Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So. 2d 363, 368 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Armstrong, 618 So. 2d at 1282). "Absent [an] abuse of discretion, the [chancery court]'s decision in such matters will generally be upheld.