Ariko v. Ariko, 84-1157
| Decision Date | 03 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1157,84-1157 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2297 John G. ARIKO, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Mary Ann ARIKO, Appellee/Cross-Appeal. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David H. Simmons and Susan W. Gibson, Orlando, for appellant/cross-appellee.
John M. Cain, Orlando, for appellee/cross-appellant.
The husband appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find no abuse of discretion, as measured by the standards of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), in those portions of the final judgment distributing property and awarding alimony, but we do find an abuse of discretion in the award of attorney's fees to the wife.
The trial court equitably distributed the substantial assets acquired by the parties during their marriage. In addition, the final judgment requires the husband to be responsible for all the debts and obligations incurred during the marriage, some of which are potentially large tax liabilities the existence and extent of which are not yet ascertained. The wife and the husband were permitted to retain ownership of property and bank accounts titled in their individual names. The wife was required to transfer to the husband her interest in jointly owned property, in exchange for which the husband was required to pay her $250,696. In addition, the wife was awarded $120,000 in lump sum alimony. Thus, it appears that the wife has received at least an equal share of the substantial marital assets.
Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1983) provides for an award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding to insure that both parties have similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. Where one spouse has a superior financial ability to secure counsel, it is not necessary for the other spouse to be completely unable to pay attorney's fees in order to be entitled to an award of such fees. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1205. On the other hand, where the parties to a dissolution are equally able to pay attorney's fees, it is an abuse of the court's discretion to require one spouse to pay the other's attorney's fees. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla.1976); Peak v. Peak, 411 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). When the court makes a truly equitable distribution of the assets, it is an abuse of discretion to require one party to pay the other party's attorney's fees where, on the basis of such distribution, each party has substantially equal ability to pay such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiller v. Schiller
...See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 623 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moore v. Moore, 543 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In this case, the trial court split the marital assets roughly equally, and awarded the former wife close to one-half of her......
-
Boyett v. Boyett
...fees after equally distributing the marital assets and equalizing their incomes through the alimony award) (citing Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)). We recognize that in making an attorney's fees award, trial courts are given broad discretion, and therefore, an appellate ......
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Robinson
-
Raehn v. Raehn
...DCA 1989); Mauldin v. Mauldin, 493 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lewis v. Lewis, 485 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Child v. Child, 474 So.2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So.2d 612, 61......