RANDY V. HEYSEK, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY L. HEYSEK, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
[*490] WHATLEY, Judge.
The Husband, Randy V. Heysek, appeals the nonfinal order awarding the Wife, Mary L. Heysek, temporary attorney’s fees. He argues that the order must be reversed because the trial court failed to set forth factual findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended. See Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing award of temporary attorneys’ fees because of lack of factual findings regarding reasonable hourly rates and amount of fees expected to be reasonably incurred). He also argues that the order must be reversed because the trial court failed to make any findings that he has the ability to pay the amount of fees awarded. See Kasm v. Kasm, 933 So. 2d 48, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The trial court must ‘not only determine that one spouse has a need for suit money and the other has the ability to pay, but also that the temporary attorney’s fees and costs awarded are reasonable.’ ”) (quoting Safford v. Safford, 656 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
The Husband is correct with regard to the deficiencies in the trial court’s order, and therefore, we agree and reverse and remand for further consideration.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kovic v. Kovic (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…a. 4th DCA 1994) (citing Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)). The failure 5 to identify the number of hours reasonably expended constitutes an abuse of discretion. Heysek v. Heysek, 997 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Neither the invoice nor the testimony from Weiss established the reasonable number of hours expended. Nor did her testimony explain how her work was connected with the motions for contempt, as opposed to the general issu…
-
Sharon v. Sharon, 35 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…determination that we mandated in 2003. Finally, the trial court’s award of $34,575.20 as temporary attorneys’ fees, although undoubtedly well intended, simply was not established in accordance with the applicable law. See, e.g., Heysek v. Heysek, 997 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding trial court erred in failing to make factual findings regarding reasonable hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended, and the husband’s ability to pay). We reverse this award. Given the posture of this case, we sug…
-
Burbage v. Burbage, 24 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…torney’s fees to the former wife. We likewise reverse the fee award and remand for the trial court to make the appropriate factual findings to support its disposition. See Rowl v. Rowl, 864 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Heysek v. Heysek, 997 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We note, however, that the trial court is free in its reconsideration of this issue, as it did in the initial grant of fees, to consider the actions and behavior of the former husband when awarding fees. See Firestone v. Fireston…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunil Ghay v. Poonam Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Safford v. Safford, 656 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Kasm v. Kasm, 933 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)