BARBARA MARCH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MARCH, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of $1,250 in attorney's fees to the wife in a divorce case, finding it an abuse of discretion where uncontradicted expert testimony recommended fees of $7,900–$8,625 for 115 hours of work. The court held that a spouse is entitled to funds enabling her to obtain competent counsel and that trial courts must award reasonable fees supported by the evidence.
The trial court abused its discretion by awarding $1,250 in attorney fees, which is inadequate and not supported by the evidence. The award was reversed and remanded for reconsideration and award of reasonable attorney fees based on the expert testimony already presented. The remainder of the order regarding costs and witness fees was affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding an inadequate attorney's fee that is not in keeping with the time expended and the novelty and importance of the legal wor…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding an attorney's fee that is not supported by the proofs submitted.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although we are usually not inclined to tread upon the trial court's discretion in matters involving attorney's fees, nevertheless, we must do so where we find a clear abuse evidenced in the record before us”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of attorney fee awards—while deference is given to trial courts, clear abuse of discretion requires appellate intervention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara March's attorneys performed approximately 115 hours of work in connection with her divorce from Robert March. Two expert witnesses testified u…
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 Competent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We reverse the order entered after final judgment awarding the wife attorneys’ fees totaling $1,250. The uncontra-dicted testimony of expert witnesses recommended a reasonable fee of either $8,625 or $7,900 for approximately 115 hours work performed by the wife’s attorneys in connection with the dissolution of her marriage to appellee. The award of $1,250 constitutes an abuse of discretion. The court commented that the attorneys performed ably on behalf of their client and no other expert testimony was presented to assist the court in determining the correct amount. In Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), this court stated:
Although we are usually not inclined to tread upon the trial court’s discretion in matters involving attorney’s fees, nevertheless, we must do so where we find a clear abuse evidenced in the record before us, see Bryan and Sons Corp. v. Klefstat [sic], 265 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), and this principle applies not only where the fee is found to be excessive, but also where it is found to be inadequate. See, e. g., Flagala Corporation v. Hamm, 302 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and Canal Authority v. Ocala Manufacturing Ice and Packing Company, 253 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
It is clear in this case that the fee allowed is not in keeping with time expended and with the novelty and importance of the legal work involved. In addition, the proofs submitted do not support the amount awarded.
372 So. 2d at 514. That principle applies in this case. The wife is entitled to funds enabling her to obtain competent counsel. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).
We affirm the remainder of the order pertaining to costs and witness fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reconsideration of the testi mony previously presented and for the award of reasonable attorney fees to the wife.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biscayne Roofing Co. v. Palmetto Fairway Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…000 and $25,000. The trial court’s award of $10,000 is not supported by the record and constitutes an abuse of discretion. We reverse under the authority of Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); accord March v. March, 395 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Cowart v. Gilson, 271 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Canal Authority v. Ocala Manufacturing Ice & Packing Co., 253 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. denied, 259 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1972). [*1111] Affirmed in part, reversed in p…
-
Larsen v. Larsen, 429 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ount of attorney’s fees for Mr. Kayser in this case. Earnest v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Co., 422 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Biscayne Roofing Co. v. Palmetto Fairway Condominium Ass’n., 418 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); March v. March, 395 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). On remand, the trial court should re-determine the amount of these fees and may, if it so desires, receive additional testimony and evidence thereon. Second,…
-
Earnest v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co., 422 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…and again reverse on the ground that the order is unsupported by the record and therefore constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. Biscayne Roofing Co. v. Palmetto Fairway Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); March v. March, 395 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Machion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). After remand, the trial court may set the fee on the basis of the previous hearing or, in its discretion, take additional testimony. . Southeastern Fidelity…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Bryan & Sons Corp. v. Sivert Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Ocala Mfg. ICE & Packing Co., 253 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Flagala Corp. v. Hamm, 302 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)