Case ID: so2d_640/html/1171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BOOTH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lillian Jennile CARTER, Appellant, v. James Allen CARTER, Appellee.
    No. 93-387.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 12, 1994.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1994.
    
      William J. Dorsey, Law Offices of William J. Dorsey, Jacksonville, for appellant.
    Terroll J. Anderson, Moss & Anderson, Jacksonville, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Lillian Jennile Carter appeals from a post-dissolution order denying her costs and attorney’s fees following her former husband’s unsuccessful attempt to modify the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal that the appellant’s net monthly income is $775.34, and the appellee’s net monthly income is $706.02, when he has work available. (No work was available when his affidavit was prepared.) In view of the relatively equal financial resources of the parties, we cannot say that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny the appellant’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

BOOTH, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The financial affidavit of appellant indicates that her entire income consists of money designated to the support of the children. I find it completely unreasonable that she be forced to defend appellee’s unsuccessful bid to obtain primary residential custody using these funds, especially where appellee’s financial affidavit indicates that he is in a better financial position than appellant. See, e.g., Eddy v. Napier, 558 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).