Naugle v. Naugle
| Decision Date | 11 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1140,93-1140 |
| Citation | 632 So.2d 1146 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D545 Robert L. NAUGLE, Appellant, v. Evelyn NAUGLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Tanya M. Plaut of Tanya M. Plaut, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Howard S. Reiss of Reiss, Hillman & Reiss, Orlando, for appellee.
Robert L. Naugle appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He appeals the distribution of marital assets, the award of permanent alimony and the award of attorney's fees and costs to his former wife Evelyn Naugle. We affirm the judgment of dissolution except the requirement that Robert pay Evelyn's attorney's fees and costs. We affirm in part and we reverse in part.
Robert and Evelyn were married for 28 years before the judgment of dissolution was entered. There is no dispute that Robert has always had superior earning capacity. The final judgment is thorough and indicates the trial judge reviewed the length of the marriage, the assets accumulated during the marriage and the relative earning capacity of the parties. Although neither party was very candid concerning their assets, the judge did not act capriciously or arbitrarily, in distributing the assets of the marriage and awarding permanent alimony. He awarded Evelyn 51% of the marital assets and Robert 49% of the marital assets. His rulings are consistent with the judicial requirements enunciated by the Supreme Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The judge entered both oral and written findings as to the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. See Sec. 61.075(3), Fla.Stat. (1991). The judge also considered all of the statutory requirements of section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1991), before awarding alimony. He did not abuse his discretion. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We affirm the distribution of marital assets and the award of permanent alimony.
We reverse, however, the requirement that Robert pay Evelyn's attorney's fees and costs. The trial court abused its discretion in this regard after making an equal distribution of marital assets and equalizing incomes through the alimony award. See Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The purpose of section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991), is to assure that each party in a dissolution of marriage case has a similar ability to secure competent counsel. The award is not based upon who "wins," but on the relative financial circumstances of the parties. Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So.2d 612, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Having placed the parties in the same relative financial position, it was error to require that Robert pay Evelyn's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyett v. Boyett
...is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees") (citing Avery v. Avery, 548 So.2d 865, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (finding that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring the former husband to pay the former wife's attorney'......
-
Vitalis v. Vitalis
...of the marital property has been achieved and the trial court equalized incomes through its alimony awards. See Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). While the trial judge may have a sufficient basis to award attorney's fees to the wife, such basis was not announced on the r......
-
Winn v. Winn, 95-417
...Lochridge v. Lochridge, 526 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).6 Overbey v. Overbey, 664 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So.2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA ...
-
Galligar v. Galligar
...alimony award, the trial court abuses its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. Vitalis, 799 So.2d at 1133 (citing Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)); accord Gaudette v. Gaudette, 890 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's ......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...how many hours reasonably expended, why husband was to pay only portion of fees, and basis for partial fee award); Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(there were no findings by trial court as to reasonableness of wife’s fees and costs or any findings as required by Rowe );......