Cited by

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2004) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.”).

“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable 9 MACNEIL v. CARTER Decision of the Court opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2004).

¶38 ¶ 17 (App. 2004), the superior court considered several factors before awarding attorneys’ fees including: the financial resources of each party, the financial disparity between the parties and the ratio of fees owed to the assets and income of each party.

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2004) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.”).

n.1 (App. 2004); ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016).

The court compares “relative financial disparity in income and/or assets” between the spouses, including each party’s ability to pay their own (and the other’s) fees and “other similar matters.” 592– 93, ¶¶ 1, 17–18 (App. 2004).

This involves a comparative assessment of the “relative financial disparity in income and/or assets” between the spouses, including each party’s ability to pay their own (and the other’s) fees and “other similar matters.” 592–93, ¶¶ 1, 17–18 (App. 2004).

The parties’ financial resources and the reasonableness of their positions are separate considerations and “an applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2004).

¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2004) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.”).

¶ 6 (App. 2004) 3 MCCANLESS v. MCCANLESS Decision of the Court (citation omitted).

§ 25-324 for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 6 (App. 2004), noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when there is an error of 3 REYES v. ESPINOZA Decision of the Court law or a complete lack of evidence to support the court’s findings.