OLIVER L. PEACOCK, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEMARY ANN PEACOCK, 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed an order awarding suit money and attorney's fees to an ex-spouse who incurred travel expenses and legal costs after the former husband ceased child support payments and the ex-spouse had to travel from South Africa for a contempt hearing.
Appellee is entitled to suit money for her travel expenses and attorney's fees. The fact that appellee could accomplish other matters while in the country is immaterial; appellant's delinquency in child support payments occasioned the expenses, and the fees were required to enforce the trial court's judgment.
[1] A party is entitled to recover suit money for expenses incurred in traveling to attend a contempt hearing necessitated by the other party's delinquency in child support p…
[2] The fact that a party may accomplish other matters during a trip taken to attend a contempt hearing does not render the travel expenses non-recoverable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Unquestionably appellee is entitled to "suit money" because of her trip to this country to attend the contempt hearing.”
Establishes that suit money is properly awarded for travel expenses necessitated by attending a contempt hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant ceased making child support payments in September 1977. Appellee filed a contempt application, with a hearing scheduled for January 17, 1979…
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 Costs And Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order awarding suit money and attorney’s fees to appellee. We affirm.
The trial court’s order recites that appellant ceased making child support payments in September, 1977, causing appellee to file an application for contempt. Hearing was set thereon for January 17,1979. Two days prior to the hearing date appellant paid the entire arrearage of $7,500. However, in anticipation of the hearing appellee already had travelled from her home in South Africa at an expense of $1,708.70 and had incurred attorney’s fees.
On January 23, 1979, appellee’s attorney sent a letter to appellant’s attorney confirming an understanding that was reached between the two attorneys by telephone. The gist of the agreement was that the question of appellee’s costs occasioned by her trip to this country and her attorney’s fees could be presented to the trial court without testimony from the parties.
On February 19, 1979, appellee filed a motion for determination of costs, expenses and fees. At the hearing on the motion appellant’s attorney objected to proceeding without live testimony from the witnesses. Notwithstanding the objection the trial court proceeded to determine the motion as to costs by use of the letter dated January 23, 1979. Appellant’s attorney argued that the entire cost of appellee’s trip to this country should not be assessed against appellant because appellee must come to this country at least once a year to maintain her citizenship. The trial court rejected that argument and awarded appellee her total claim of $1,708.70. The court also awarded $900 in attorney’s fees to appellee’s attorney after hearing the testimony of an attorney called as a witness by appellee.
Unquestionably appellee is entitled to “suit money” because of her trip to this country to attend the contempt hearing. Foster v. Foster, 220 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The fact that she also could accomplish other matters while in this country is immaterial. Appellant’s delinquency in child support payments occasioned the expenses.
As for the attorney’s fees awarded to appellee, the order and approved state ment in lieu of transcript signed by the trial court supports its decision. Moreover, the fees were incurred solely by appellant’s default in child support payments and were required to enforce the trial court’s final judgment. Accordingly we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (error for trial court to order former husband to pay only one-half of former wife’s attorney’s fees where former husband’s motion to reduce or eliminate alimony was totally meritless); Peacock v. Peacock, 394 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (trial court properly awarded former wife attorney’s fees incurred to enforce terms of final judgment); Ettinger v. Ettinger, 242 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (failure of former husband to comply with settlement agreement entitl…
-
Mezyk v. Mezyk, 519 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 511 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1987); Young v. Young, 507 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Peacock v. Peacock, 394 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore the matter is returned to the trial court to consider the amount that should be awarded to the appellant as attorney’s fees for successfully enforcing the prior fina…
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. Foster, 220 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)