Crispin v. Crispin

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Crispin v. Crispin, 411 So. 2d 218 (1982)
1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19194
Jorgenson, Nesbitt, Pearson

Crispin v. Crispin

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

From the record presented for review, we conclude that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court and, therefore, cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Additionally, contrary to appellant’s contention, the trial court did not, ipso facto, abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees in an amount less than the expert testimony offered by the appellant, notwithstanding that appellee offered no opposing expert testimony on that issue. Fatoiitis v. Fatolitis, 271 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Martha C. CRISPIN v. Samuel B. CRISPIN
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published