{"id":1986,"date":"2017-04-24T12:08:24","date_gmt":"2017-04-24T12:08:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bresky-merger.local.com\/posts\/law-offices-of-robin-bresky-obtains-affirmance-of-order-awarding-former-wife-attorneys-fees-in-dissolution-of-marriage-proceeding\/"},"modified":"2017-04-24T12:08:24","modified_gmt":"2017-04-24T12:08:24","slug":"law-offices-of-robin-bresky-obtains-affirmance-of-order-awarding-former-wife-attorneys-fees-in-dissolution-of-marriage-proceeding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/law-offices-of-robin-bresky-obtains-affirmance-of-order-awarding-former-wife-attorneys-fees-in-dissolution-of-marriage-proceeding\/","title":{"rendered":"Bresky Law Obtains Affirmance of Order Awarding Former Wife Attorney\u2019s Fees in Dissolution of Marriage Proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"

April 13, 2017<\/em><\/p>\n

Our firm recently obtained an affirmance in the appeals court of a Final Order on Attorney\u2019s Fees and Costs (\u201cFee Order\u201d) rendered by a trial court in favor of our client in a divorce proceeding.<\/p>\n

We represented the former wife in the former husband\u2019s appeal of the Fee Order that was entered following the final judgment in the divorce proceeding. The former husband argued on appeal that the former wife did not have a need for an attorney\u2019s fee award, despite the fact that he had the ability to pay the former wife\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees. The former husband pointed to the substantial assets that the former wife received in the equitable distribution and to the income the former wife earns from her employment as a pharmacist.<\/p>\n

We maintained on appeal that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances. We argued that the disparity between the parties\u2019 incomes was vast, and denying the former wife an award of attorney\u2019s fees would require her to invade her equitable distribution assets to pay the fees. Under the circumstances, the court\u2019s denial of fees to the former wife would have resulted in the inequitable diminution of the former wife\u2019s equitable distribution assets.<\/p>\n

We also argued that the appellate court should affirm the Fee Order on procedural grounds for lack of an appropriate record. We argued that the former husband failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal to allow the appellate court to review the merits of the argument raised in the former husband\u2019s initial brief. An appellant\u2019s failure to provide a proper record to the reviewing court is \u201cusually fatal\u201d to the appellant\u2019s claims. Casella v. Casella<\/em>, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).<\/p>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Fee Order. The appellate court also conditionally granted our client\u2019s request for entitlement to appellate attorney\u2019s fees. This favorable result preserved the fee award in favor of our client and will allow her to seek an award of her appellate attorney\u2019s fees from the trial court.<\/p>\n