Case Name: Thad Richard SIZEMORE, Jr., Appellant, v. Marion Lucille SIZEMORE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-03-06
Citations: 487 So. 2d 1080
Docket Number: No. 85-740
Parties: Thad Richard SIZEMORE, Jr., Appellant, v. Marion Lucille SIZEMORE, Appellee.
Judges: UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 487
Pages: 1080–1082

Head Matter:
Thad Richard SIZEMORE, Jr., Appellant, v. Marion Lucille SIZEMORE, Appellee.
No. 85-740.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 6, 1986.
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1986.
Berrien Becks, Jr., of Becks, Becks & Wickersham, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Garrett L. Briggs, of Adams & Briggs, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, Judge.
The former husband seeks to overturn a dissolution decree on the grounds that the trial judge abused his discretion in making awards of permanent alimony and attorney's fees. Although the awards received by the former wife were generous, we cannot say, based on this record, no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
However, we do find error in the trial court's $5,000.00 award of attorney's fees to the wife, to be paid by the husband. She was awarded $575.00 per week in alimony, $200.00 per week in child support, and $333,500.00 in marital assets. The former husband received $535,258.00 in assets, and has enjoyed an average income of at least $90,000.00 per year (exclusive of corporate fringe benefits which he has enjoyed in the past), together with other side business income. Where the parties depart the marriage in relatively equal economic circumstances, it is error to award attorney's fees to one party. Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
. The husband's 1983 tax returns showed gross income in excess of $182,000.00, exclusive of corporate fringe benefits. However, the husband testified that for the first six months of 1984 his income was only $33,000.00. The record reveals it was impossible for the trial judge to arrive at an accurate figure which would represent the husband's real income. He therefore averaged the husband's gross income for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 to arrive at the $90,000.00 figure.