RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that reasonable fees for representation in post-dissolution proceedings were $445 where petitioner admitted that the nature of the controversy was relatively simple, that the case presented no novel or difficult question, and that there was no important family law issue involved.
Considering the respective financial resources of the parties, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring respondent to pay $10,000 for petitioner’s attorney fees.
Where a wife’s $9,000 in attorney fees amounted to approximately double her annual gross earnings, where she did not own any income-producing assets, and where her husband’s ability to pay attorney fees was considerably greater than that of the wife’s, the award of attorney fees to the wife was not an abuse of discretion.
There was no abuse of discretion in requiring that respondent pay $1,200 towards petitioner’s reasonable attorney fees where petitioner’s income and assets were minimal while those of respondent were substantial.
Where petitioner was unable on a relative basis to pay all of her own attorney fees without depleting her capital assets, the trial court’s conclusion that respondent should pay $3,500 of petitioner’s attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion.
After considering the financial resources of the parties, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to award attorney fees.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to wife on the basis that there was no evidence of husband’s assets, his past income, or his current income, other than his testimony that wile recovering from an operation he was only receiving income of $475 per month from a partnership.
Where the parties’ income was substantially unequal, but the wife received more marital property capable of producing income in the near future, and the husband was required to pay a substantial part of the wife’s fees, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award wife attorney fees.
One spouse’s earlier part-time employment and probationary employment at the time of hearing did not provide a sufficient basis upon which to find equality in earning power with that of her husband, a college graduate employed by the same company since 1967 with steady increases in compensation, such that the trial court’s award of attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring husband to pay a portion of wife’s attorney fees where it could have reasonably concluded that the husband had the ability to pay and that the respondent wife did not have the ability to pay that portion of the fees.
Award of attorney fees to former wife was consistent with the weight of the evidence and not an abuse of the court’s discretion.
In view of respondent’s income and his obligations under the property division, the trial court’s award of $500 in attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion.
The circuit court’s order that respondent pay two-thirds of petitioner’s attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion, even though petitioner had the ability to pay the entire amount of her fees out of her bank accounts and stock.
Trial court’s determination that the plaintiff was unable to pay all of her attorneys’ fees was not palpably erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
Where each party had approximately $100 left after the payment of its monthly expenses, and where petitioner’s obligations were comparably greater and included, in addition to his own attorney fees, payment of the child’s attorney fees, the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to respondent was not an abuse of discretion.
