Schwebke v. Schwebke

6 Citing cases

  1. Freid v. Freid

    717 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    Reversing temporary attorney's fee award and remanding for reconsideration

    See also, Firestone v. Firestone, 704 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Grizzard v. Grizzard, 693 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (must be finding that receiving party is in need of assistance to balance the parties abilities to obtain legal counsel). These findings are necessary for an appellate court to meaningfully review an attorney fee award should an appeal be filed. Failure to make these findings requires a reversal and remand to the lower court. Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Schwebke v. Schwebke, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Remands to the trial court due to lack of findings are a waste of judicial time and effort, as well as a waste of money for the state and the respective parties. In this case, the trial court should swiftly deal with this issue and this entire case before the parties are bankrupted by this litigation.

  2. Hubbard v. Hubbard

    486 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

    Finding that the parties' settlement agreement, incorporated within the Final Judgment [of] Dissolution of Marriage, provided for reduction of alimony on the occurrence of the former wife's "remarriage," (a term specifically defined to include the wife's cohabitation), we affirm the post-judgment order pertaining to arrearages. See Mendel v. Mendel, 257 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gale v. Rose, 455 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Adams v. Adams, 423 So.2d 596, 598 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Pusey v. Pusey, 386 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Schwebke v. Schwebke, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellant's remaining point lacks merit. Affirmed.

  3. Pusey v. Pusey

    386 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 14 times

    We cannot agree. A property settlement agreement like any other agreement must be given a realistic interpretation based on its plain everyday meaning as conveyed by its terms unless its context unmistakably shows that the parties intended that it be given some peculiar interpretation not readily apparent on its face. Schwebke v. Schwebke, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 342 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The agreement in this case clearly provides that Alfred's alimony payments are to be credited for only those monies that Joan receives from the family trust under the Will of Ralph A. Elmore, deceased.

  4. Costea v. Sanzo

    378 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

    Because the wife presented no evidence either of the value of counsel's services or of her existing need, the denial of her claim for attorney's fees below is affirmed. Schwebke v. Schwebke, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Johnson v. Johnson, 346 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

  5. Pruitt v. Pruitt

    370 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    However, we believe that the trial court erred when it awarded attorney's fees to appellee in regard to appellant's motion. See, e.g., Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Schwebkne v. Schwebkne, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed, except, to the extent that it awarded attorney's fees to appellee, it is reversed.

  6. Tindel v. Tindel

    365 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

    However, it is improper to terminate alimony without the wife being put on notice of what is to transpire. Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Schwebke v. Schwebke, 347 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In the case at bar, so far as the wife understandably expected, the hearing would only involve the question of the husband's arrearages on which question she proved successful.