GHITA FAYE WOLPOWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLAN WOLPOWITZ, APPELLEE
GHITA FAYE WOLPOWITZ, APPELLANT,
ALLAN WOLPOWITZ, APPELLEE
618 So. 2d 365
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Concurrence
FARMER, Judge,
concurring specially.
Our action, in affirming the trial court’s decision to deny temporary attorney’s fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991), in this dissolution of marriage action should not be understood by the trial judge as the law of the case as to either the reasonableness of the fee agreement between the Wife and her lawyer or the reasonableness of the fees he has charged her to date. Both of these subjects remain open for consideration in any future application for fees. In denying fees, the trial judge has not necessarily ruled on these issues.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gerard v. Gerard, 656 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…beyond his earnings that can be used to make these payments. The husband cannot realistically be expected to keep current on all of these obligations ordered by the trial court. See Wrona v. Wrona, 592 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Degen v. Degen, 618 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We do not want to create a situation where the long-term financial well-being of all parties would suffer because the husband could not presently fulfill his support obligations. The amount of alimony should be a figure the husb…