Udell v. Udell
| Decision Date | 10 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3450,3450 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 863 |
| Parties | Daniel A. UDELL, Appellant, v. Elinor K. UDELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elwyn L. Middleton of Burns, Middleton, Rogers & Farrell, Palm Beach, for appellant.
Edgar G. Hamilton, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The appellant, defendant and counterclaimant in the lower court, appeals from a final decree of divorce which granted to the appellee, Elinor K. Udell, a divorce, granted custody of a minor son, James, to the appellant-father, and granted custody of the daughter, Bonnie, jointly to the appellant and the appellee. The decree provided that the daughter be with each of the parties for an equal amount of time; awarded appellee a lump sum alimony in the sum of $300,000 with payment to be made in money or property, or both, which payment could be amde over a period of five years; and provided that an attorney's fee in the sum of $10,000 be paid to the attorney for the appellee, together with court costs to the plaintiff-appellee in the sum of $1200.00.
The record includes the testimony of one well known Palm Beach County attorney who testified that a reasonable attorney's fee for the plaintiff's attorney would be between $25,000 and $35,000 with an absolute minimum of $20,000. Another distinguished attorney with 35 years of experience before the Bar testified that a reasonable fee for plaintiff's counsel would be $25,000. No contrary evidence was offered by the defendant-appellant. It is noted that the fee awarded the appellee's counsel, totaling some $12,000, was much less than the minimum amount testified to before the lower court. This was a matter for the discretion of the trial judge and we find no evidence in the record to reverse the trial judge on the attorney's fees awarded.
There was evidence in the record from which the trial judge could have concluded that the assets of the appellant were in excess of $1,600,000 and we find no dispute of the fact that the court's finding is supported by the record. We conclude under the record in this case that the award of the gross sum alimony was within the discretion of the trial judge.
The lower court awarded the custody of the 18 year old son, who will be away from home in college, to the father. The 13 year old daughter was in school in Palm Beach during the divorce proceedings and was living with her father. She expressed a desire to remain with her father. Whild a judge should and does give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sargeant v. Sargeant
...P.2d 601 (1970); Shane v. Shane, 84 Nev. 20, 435 P.2d 753 (1968); see also Reeves v. Reeves, 399 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.App.1966); Udell v. Udell, 151 So.2d 863 (Fla.App.1963); Broida v. Broida, 388 S.W.2d 617 (Ky.1965); cf. Cruikshank v. Cruikshank, 49 Cal.App.2d 144, 121 P.2d 25, 27 The dour atti......
-
Nixon v. Nixon, s. 67-719
...201 So.2d 638; Garner v. Garner, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 673.4 Pollack v. Pollak, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 771; Udell v. Udell, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 863.5 Nixon v. Nixon, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d ...
-
Wilson v. Condra, O--204
...Garner, 193 So.2d 673 (Fla. DCA 2d, 1967), and cases cited therein.2 Ritsi v. Ritsi, 160 So.2d 159 (Fla. DCA3d, 1964).3 Udell v. Udell, 151 So.2d 863 (Fla. DCA 2d, 1963).4 Foster, v. Sharpe, 114 So.2d 373 (Fla. DCA 3d, ...