Case ID: so2d_432/html/0734-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. LETTS, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Birgitte MURRELL, Appellant, v. Richard MURRELL, Appellee.
    No. 82-902.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 8, 1983.
    Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Paul A. Turk, Jr., of Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

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.

BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

LETTS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

LETTS, Chief Judge,

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 and eighty thousand dollars as her one-half share thereof. Thus, she can hardly be said to be without financial resource. True, the house is as yet unsold, but the time is now ripe for that sale under the trial judge’s order.