Case ID: so2d_476/html/0770-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vicki TAPLIN, Appellant, v. Jack G. TAPLIN, Appellee.
    No. 85-401.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 15, 1985.
    Steven M. Rosen, Miami, for appellant.
    Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel S. Perwin and Katherine W. Ezell, Miami, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and NESBITT, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We are convinced that the wife’s application for additional temporary attorney’s fees was denied as a matter of the trial court’s discretion — rather than because of a belief, contrary to Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972), that none could be awarded under the circumstances as a matter of law. The order is affirmed on the ground that no abuse of that discretion has been demonstrated. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Muhlrad v. Muhlrad, 375 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).