History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dash v. Dash
363 So. 2d 48
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1978
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Appellant/petitioner/husband appeals from an award of attorney’s fees rendered in favor of appellee/respondent/wife. Basically, appellant challenges the award of attorney’s fees to appellee as being “grossly unreasonable and shocking.”

Attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to a dissolution of marriage action is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Absent an abuse of that discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As stated in this *49court’s opinion (per Judge Hubbart) in Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971):

“The elements usually considered in determining the amount of attorney’s fees are: services rendered, responsibility incurred, the nature of the services, the skill required, the circumstances under which it was rendered, the ability of the litigant to respond, the value of the services to the client, and the beneficial results, if any, of the services.” at 379.

Based upon the above criteria and the record before us, it is our opinion that there was substantial competent evidence to justify the court’s award and as such, there was no abuse of discretion. Krasner v. Krasner, supra.

Other points raised by appellant are without merit.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Dash v. Dash
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Oct 10, 1978
Citation: 363 So. 2d 48
Docket Number: No. 77-1846
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.