Case ID: so2d_665/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joan (Joanie) HALBERG, Appellant, v. David J. HALBERG, Appellee.
    No. 94-2572.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 29, 1995.
    Order Granting Clarification and Denying Rehearing Jan. 17, 1996.
    Bailey, Hunt & Jones; Elser, Greene, Ho-dor & Fabar, Miami, and Cynthia L. Greene, Coral Gables, for appellant.
    Bluestein & Wayne; Sam Daniels and A.J. Barranco, Miami, for appellee.
    Before COPE, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joan Halberg, appeals the trial court’s downward modification of alimony and denial of attorney’s fees. We find no error in the modification of alimony and affirm. We reverse on the issue of attorney’s fees.

In modification proceedings, courts must consider the relative financial positions of each party in considering requests for attorney’s fees. See § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). In light of the parties’ agreement, and where appellee petitioned for modification, we find appellant is entitled to attorney’s fees based upon her demonstrated need and appellee’s far superior financial position. See Thrift v. Thrift, 632 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

ON MOTION FOB REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

We grant appellant’s motion for clarification. Appellant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in defending against appellee’s petition for modification of alimony. Because of a provision in the agreed final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellant is not entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with her eounterpetition for modification of alimony. The motion for rehearing is denied.