HomeMy WebLinkAbout0288 After division of the property as
hereinafter set forth, she [the wife) has
assets having a net worth substantially
equal to that of the petitioner and she has
an income and earning capacity substantially
equal to that of the petitioner.
Although we might well have arrived at a different
conclusion, the trial court here was vested With the discretion
normally possessed by a trial judge under the dictates of
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 113? (Fla. 1980), and with the
additional discretion created by the stipulation of the parties.
As such we conclude that the wife has failed to demonstrate _
reversible error in regard to the child support and the property
division. These awards are thus affirmed.
As to the .award of attorneys' fees which is contested
by the husband, the court stated as follows:
As to the matter of respondent's request for
attorney's fees, the Court finds from the
evidence that the husband is guilty of vexa-
tious, wanton and oppressive-conduct, thus -
justifying the application of the court's
inherent equitable authority. The Court
therefore awards the wife the sum of Five
Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars to apply toward
her attorney's fees, said sum to be paid
by the husband within six (6) months from
the date of this Judgment.
~ The Supreme Court's decision in Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d
206 (Fla. 1961), dealt with a situation where the husband's con-
duct was oppressive, vexatious and wanton. The Supreme Court
concluded that even such conduct would not warrant imposition of
attorney's fees unless the conduct resulted in additional work to
be performed by counsel for the wife. Clearly, fees may not be
awarded as a punitive measure. A trial court is, however, not '
without authority in this regard. In Lewis v. Lewis, So.2d
(Fla. 4th DCA 1980), Case No. 78-1305, opinion filed May 21,
1980, this Court stated as follows:
E
In addition, as appellee contends, it may
be the trial court felt a great deal of the
work required to earn the attorneys' fees
was unnecessarily caused by the husband.
In any event, as the Court stated in
Canakaris:
_3-
3
a~342 ~~~F 288
~z. - - - _ _ - _