ISAAC FELDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ZENA K. FELDMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed awards of $10,000 in attorneys' fees and 26% of corporate operating capital, holding that expert testimony is required to establish fee reasonableness and that a trial court cannot order transfer of corporate assets when the corporation is not a party to the litigation.
A trial court cannot award attorneys' fees in a dissolution case without expert testimony establishing reasonableness, and cannot order transfer of a non-party corporation's assets even when ordering transfer of a party's stock in that corporation.
[1] Expert testimony establishing the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is required in dissolution proceedings and cannot be dispensed with by the trial court.
[2] A trial court may order a party to transfer stock owned by that party in a corporation, but lacks authority to order transfer of the corporation's assets when the corpora…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a marriage dissolution proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife $10,000 in attorneys' fees and ordered the husband to transfer 26% of the opera…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expert Testimony Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The portions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,000 to the wife, Zena Feldman, and ordered Isaac Feldman to transfer to Zena twenty-six per cent of the operating capital of American Men’s Wear Clothing Company, Inc., are reversed upon holdings that (1) the failure of the wife to offer expert testimony to establish the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees vitiates the award, Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson, 366 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Wilson v. Wilson, 362 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lee v. Gilbert, Silverstein & Heilman, P. A., 350 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (2) the trial court, although well within its authority to order, as it did, the husband to transfer to the wife stock owned by him in American Men’s Wear Clothing Company, Inc., was not empowered to order the transfer of the assets of a corporation which was not a party to the litigation, see Couture v. Couture, 307 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Since the wife’s failure to offer expert testimony on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees may have resulted from the trial court’s premature award of such fees, we remand this cause with directions that the wife be afforded an opportunity to present such testimony at a further hearing before the trial court. In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…distributed to the wife, and (b) the trial court otherwise equitably distributed the assets of the marriage. See Poitier v. Poitier, 458 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Maggio v. Maggio, 405 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Feldman v. Feld-man, 390 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Second, we see no merit in the wife’s attack on the rehabilitative alimony award. The award was strictly a bridge-the-gap type of award as the wife is presently employed, has more than adequate employment skills, and needs…1 / 2
-
Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…Mercedes is that it was owned by a corporation in which the appellant owned 87% of the stock, not by the appellant himself. This corporation was not joined as a party and, thus, the trial court had no power to transfer this corporate asset. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Noe v. Noe, 431 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We find no abuse of discretion in the award of permanent, periodic alimony. See Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985 (…
-
Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Quarngesser v. Quamgesser, 177 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965). See also J. Overton’s dissent, Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1985) (the failure to offer expert proof vitiates the award). Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980) (remanded with directions that wife be afforded opportunity to present testimony where she initially failed to offer such proof below).…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Joan v. LEE, 350 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Couture v. Couture, 307 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 362 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson, 366 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)