Legal Opinion · Dissent

Scherer v. Scherer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 5, 1963No. 62-646Published

1Dissent

PEARSON, TILLMAN, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

The holding that the -chancellor acted within his discretion when he allowed the filing of the amended counterclaim is, I think, proper. Upon the other hand, the failure to allow the plaintiff-wife attorney’s fees and discovery costs pendente lite was, it seems to me, an abuse of discretion. I would reverse in part and remand with directions to make such provision and allow a reasonable time before trial. McAllister v. McAllister, 140 Fla. 207, 191 So. 303.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McAllister v. McAllisterSupreme Court of Florida · 1939