and that Becky’s attorney had litigated, the case diligently. ¶50. “An award of attorney’s fees is appropriate in a divorce case where the requesting party establishes an inability to pay.” Williams v. Williams, 179 So.3d 1242, 1254 (¶ 42) (Miss.Ct.App.2015) (quoting Stewart v. Stewart, 2 So.3d 770, 776 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2009)). “However, if a party is financially able to pay her attorney, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate.” Id. (quoting Stewart, 2 So.3d at 776 (¶ 18)). In addition, if neither party has the ability to pay more than his or her own fees, no fees should be awarded. See Sarver v. Sarver, 687 So.2d 749, 755 (Miss.1997), overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So.2d 157 (Miss.2000). ¶ 51. We conclude that the awa -21 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). VI. The chancellor erred by ordering Gene to
holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs holding that a wifes net worth of approximately 62000 demonstrated her ability to pay her own attorneys fees notwithstanding her objection that her assets were illiquid in the form of home equity and a state retirement account holding that a wife was able to pay her own attorneys fees because she had an investment account of 16000 which could be liquidated to pay the fees holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife