432 So. 2d 734 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1983
Concurrence in Part
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree the trial court should have awarded permanent alimony, but I cannot find an abuse of discretion in failing to grant attorney’s fees to the wife.
Depending on how much the house sells for, the wife will receive between seventy
Lead Opinion
This is a wife’s appeal from a final judgment of dissolution. On appeal, several issues are raised. We find them all to be meritless with the exception of the rehabilitative alimony award and denial of wife’s attorney’s fees. We conclude that the award of alimony should have been permanent and modify the judgment to this effect. Further, the denial of attorney’s fees to the wife was contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), in that it would constitute an unfair diminution in her award. For this reason, we remand with instructions to the trial court to award the wife’s attorney’s fees. The judgment is otherwise affirmed as modified.
MODIFIED AND REMANDED.