Hudgens v. Hudgens, 81-790
| Decision Date | 26 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-790,81-790 |
| Citation | 411 So.2d 354 |
| Parties | John Clark HUDGENS, Jr., Appellant, v. Noel P. HUDGENS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John S. Wagstaff of Phillips, McFarland, Gould & Wagstaff, P. A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Stephen W. Sessums and Carole A. Taylor of Albritton, Sessums & McCall, Tampa, for appellee.
The Hudgens' marriage was dissolved in 1972 pursuant to a judgment which incorporated a property settlement agreement that provided for the payment of lump sum and permanent alimony to the wife. Recently, upon petition and counterpetition of the parties, the court entered an order which denied the husband's petition for termination of permanent alimony and the wife's petition for an increase in alimony. The order also granted in part the wife's petition for a determination of arrearages in alimony payments and awarded attorney's fees to the wife for the services of her attorney in collecting the arrearages. The husband appeals the denial of his petition to terminate alimony. The wife cross-appeals the denial of her petition to increase alimony, the determination of certain credits which the court applied against the husband's arrearages, and the failure of the court to award attorney's fees for the balance of her attorney's services in this proceeding.
After reviewing the record, we have concluded that the court acted properly within its discretion in denying the husband's petition to terminate alimony and in refusing to grant the wife's petition to increase the alimony. The testimony and documents pertaining to the credit against the arrearages were complicated and conflicting. However, because there was an evidentiary basis for the amount of credit as determined by the court, this must not be disturbed. This leaves only the issue of attorney's fees.
We agree with the wife that the court should not have limited the award of attorney's fees to those services connected with the collection of the arrearages. At the outset, we cannot see why if the wife was entitled to attorney's fees for the collection of the husband's back alimony, she was not also entitled to attorney's fees for successfully defending against the husband's petition to terminate the alimony. In the final analysis, however, the award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding depends not upon who wins but rather upon the relative financial circumstances of the parties. § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1981); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straley v. Frank
...Rule 4-1.5(B)(7); Hall v. Hall, 200 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) quoting Provus v. Provus, 44 So.2d 656 (Fla.1950).12 Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).13 Smith v. Smith, 495 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Mertz v. Mertz, 287 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Silberman v. Katc......
-
Straley v. Frank
...Rule 4-1.5(B)(7); Hall v. Hall, 200 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA1967), quoting Provus v. Provus, 44 So.2d 656 (Fla.1950).8 Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA1982).9 Smith v. Smith, 495 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA1986); Mertz v. Mertz, 287 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA1973); Silberman v. Katcher, ......
-
Rosen v. Rosen
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (award of attorney's fees in matrimonial action is not governed by a prevailing party standard); Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Other cases conclude that the results obtained are to be considered in calculating an appropriate attorney's fee. Rosen V......
-
Mandy v. Williams, 85-1423
...fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding depends upon "the relative financial circumstances of the parties." Hudgens v. Hudgens, 411 So.2d 354, 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). This court has held that a trial court's failure to award fees to a wife whose financial position is substantially infe......