A. WAYNE LAFFERTY, APPELLANT,
v.
MILDRED CART LAFFERTY A/K/A MILDRED C. LAFFERTY, 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 husband appeals an order requiring him to pay his ex-wife's $800 expert witness fee (for an accountant) incurred in a successful contempt motion for nonpayment of alimony. The court holds that while expert witness fees may be taxed as costs, an evidentiary hearing is required only when the opposing party specifically objects to the fee; otherwise, the trial judge may set the fee within his discretion.
Upon specific objection to an expert witness fee, the prevailing party must present testimony on the necessity and reasonableness of the fee. However, when no specific objection is made, the trial judge has discretion to set the expert witness fee based on judicial experience, observation of the witness's testimony, and review of the record.
[1] A court may award expert witness fees as costs to the prevailing party.
[2] When an objection is specifically raised regarding the reasonableness of an expert witness fee, the prevailing party must present testimony to establish the necessity and…
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“upon the specific objection to the setting of an expert witness fee without an evidentiary hearing, the prevailing party will have to present testimony concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the fee”
Establishes the requirement for proof when the opposing party objects to the expert fee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband failed to pay alimony and the ex-wife brought a contempt motion. In preparation, the husband retained a bookkeeper to testify he could not…
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 Reasonableness Of Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The husband appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to his ex-wife for her successful prosecution of a motion for contempt based on the husband’s failure to pay alimony.
The only point which requires discussion is the husband’s contention that the court improperly ordered him to pay the wife, as part of her costs, $800 for the expert witness fee of her accountant. The colloquy before the court on this subject indicates that in preparation for the contempt hearing the husband had retained a bookkeeper to review his records with a view toward the bookkeeper testifying that he could not afford to pay the back alimony. Counsel for the wife then employed an accountant to review the doctor’s records and to testify in opposition. The accountant worked on the case for twenty hours, including three and one half hours in court, and charged $40 an hour. The husband now asserts that the court could not tax the costs of this expert witness without first taking testimony with respect to whether his charge was a reasonable fee. He cites Posner v. Flink, 393 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981), in which the court held that as in the ease of attorney’s fees it was necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to determine the reasonable fee of any expert witness. In reaching its decision, the court there relied upon section 92.231, Florida Statutes (1981), which is the only statute on the subject pertaining to civil actions. However, while that section authorizes the court to tax expert witness fees, it does not specify the manner in which this is to be done.
Implicit in the rule that an attorney’s fee must always be proved through the presentation of testimony is that such a requirement is necessary to maintain the image of lawyers in the eyes of the public. Moreover, a claim for attorney’s fees is substantive in nature in that it entails a recovery for services rendered while the expert witness is compensated for testifying. While tradition cannot serve to make proper an otherwise illegal practice, the court in this case followed the customary method of determining expert witness fees. See, e.g., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 367 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), in which the court upheld an expert witness fee of $11,624.76 based upon invoices submitted by the witness. The impracticalities of requiring testimony in every instance are obvious. This would mean that the court could not tax a doctor’s expert witness fee in favor of the prevailing party in the ordinary personal injury action without taking testimony on what constituted a reasonable fee. To pursue this line of thought to its reasonable conclusion, the doctor who testified concerning the reasonableness of the fee would then be entitled to an expert witness fee to be set by further expert testimony.
In order to avoid the possibility of abuse, we hold that upon the specific objection to the setting of an expert witness fee without an evidentiary hearing, the prevailing party will have to present testimony concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the fee. If no specific objection is made, as in the instant case, we believe the judge has the authority to set the amount of the expert witness fee based upon his experience in these matters together with his observation of the witness’s testimony or his review of the record. We hereby recede from any implication to the contrary which may be contained in our opinion in Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1964).
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…hat the trial court erred in failing to assess the reasonableness of that latter cost without holding an evidentiary hearing, since a specific objection was made below by counsel for appellants to the setting of such a fee. Cf. Lafferty v. Lafferty, 413 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Consequently, the award of costs is also reversed and remanded for further proceedings for the court to consider only those amounts expended to enforce the guaranty contracts and to take into account and determine the reasonablen…
-
Powell v. Barnes, 629 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…COBB, Judge. The issue on this appeal is a simple one: What is a prevailing party’s burden at an evidentiary cost hearing for recovery of expert witness fees? In Lafferty v. Lafferty, 413 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), it was held that, upon specific objection to the setting of an expert witness fee without an evidentiary hearing (as in the instant case), the prevailing party will have to present testimony concerning the necessity and reasonabl…1 / 2
-
Island Hoppers, Ltd. v. Norma Beard Keith for the Estate of Marsha K. Beard, 820 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…rs’ public relations: Implicit in the rule that an attorney’s fee must always be proved through the presentation of testimony is that such a requirement is necessary to maintain the image of lawyers in the eyes of the public. Lafferty v. Lafferty, 413 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Whatever the rule requiring an independent expert has contributed to the image of lawyers, I suspect it is not so great so as to preclude modification of the rule to be more in accord with the current reality. Since the 196…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Clark v. State, 172 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1965)
- Rodriguez v. State, 393 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Posner v. Flink, 393 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 367 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)