In Florida, attorney's charges for divorce cases can be paid by the more rich party on a 'need and capability to pay ' basis. The Court will consider the equitable distribution between the parties at the end of the case in the calculation of need and ability to pay. A recent case out of the second District Court of Appeal demonstrates how the Court should make this calculation.
In this case the man earned the family's revenue, earning $175,000 base salary, $6,000 automobile allowance, and serious bonuses. The Court resolved alimony and juvenile support awarding the approximately $6,000 a month in numerous sorts of support. The Court also resolved equitable distribution awarding both parties over 1,000,000 dollars in assets. Across the case the partner had voluntarily contributed $20,000 toward the hife's attorney's costs and cost.
At the conclusion of trial both parties requested attorney's costs. The man requested his better half pay his attorney's costs for her impropriety in the case. The other half requested the husband to pay her fees based on her need and his capability to pay. The trial court denied the husband's request, finding the spouse had caused some unnecessary delay and pointless increase in attorney's fees, but that mitigating circumstances warranted some of this delay. The Trial Court also denied the wife's motion finding that the parties were in comparatively equal monetary positions.
The second District Court of Appeal reversed this call as the trial court inproperly ignored the better half's bonus revenue. It found that while the bonus revenue was not assured, for 13 years he had earned a bonus of $74,000. While the appeals court agreed that past earnings had been divided comparatively similarly; it found the trial court did not properly consider future earning capability. Specifically referencing another case.
"where, as here, the record establishes that the parties' past, present, and anticipated earnings are not substantially equivalent, it may be inequitable to force the lower earning party to deplete her share of the otherwise equally divided assets to pay attorney's fees" Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
See, DiNardo v. DiNardo, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D323 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012).
Tag: Family Law Attorney Fort Myers
In this case the man earned the family's revenue, earning $175,000 base salary, $6,000 automobile allowance, and serious bonuses. The Court resolved alimony and juvenile support awarding the approximately $6,000 a month in numerous sorts of support. The Court also resolved equitable distribution awarding both parties over 1,000,000 dollars in assets. Across the case the partner had voluntarily contributed $20,000 toward the hife's attorney's costs and cost.
At the conclusion of trial both parties requested attorney's costs. The man requested his better half pay his attorney's costs for her impropriety in the case. The other half requested the husband to pay her fees based on her need and his capability to pay. The trial court denied the husband's request, finding the spouse had caused some unnecessary delay and pointless increase in attorney's fees, but that mitigating circumstances warranted some of this delay. The Trial Court also denied the wife's motion finding that the parties were in comparatively equal monetary positions.
The second District Court of Appeal reversed this call as the trial court inproperly ignored the better half's bonus revenue. It found that while the bonus revenue was not assured, for 13 years he had earned a bonus of $74,000. While the appeals court agreed that past earnings had been divided comparatively similarly; it found the trial court did not properly consider future earning capability. Specifically referencing another case.
"where, as here, the record establishes that the parties' past, present, and anticipated earnings are not substantially equivalent, it may be inequitable to force the lower earning party to deplete her share of the otherwise equally divided assets to pay attorney's fees" Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
See, DiNardo v. DiNardo, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D323 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012).
Tag: Family Law Attorney Fort Myers
About the Author:
Dustin Michael Butler is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses in Family Law (Fort Myers Family Law Attorney) and Civil Litigation. He is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida. He primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.
No comments:
Post a Comment