ALVANCE DESHOMMES, APPELLANT,
v.
CALMITA BAZIN, 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 a partition action, the trial court awarded the appellee a larger share of the sale proceeds and ordered the appellant to pay $5,500 in attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the partition distribution but reversed the fee award, finding the trial court failed to apply statutory criteria for apportionment of fees between the parties proportional to their respective interests.
The trial court's award of attorneys' fees was improper because it failed to apply all relevant statutory criteria, did not determine reasonable fees earned by defendant's counsel, and failed to apportion fees between the parties proportionally to their interests. The case is remanded for proper determination of attorneys' fees and apportionment.
[1] The amount of attorneys' fees awarded in a partition action is within the discretion of the trial court.
[2] Criteria for determining attorneys' fees in partition actions include the services performed, responsibility incurred, nature and skill of the service, circumstances, cus…
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“Every party shall be bound by the judgment to pay a share of the costs, including attorneys' fees to plaintiff's or defendant's attorneys or to each of them commensurate with their services rendered and of benefit to the partition, to be determined on equitable principles in proportion to his interest....”
Establishes the statutory requirement for apportioning attorneys' fees in partition actions based on each party's proportional interest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo parties owned real estate in equity valued at $42,500. The property was sold for $50,000. The plaintiff/appellee was awarded $28,415 and the defen…
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 Partition Action cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The final judgment of partition under appeal is affirmed in all respects except for the provision therein for attorneys’ fees and costs. By the terms of the final judgment the plaintiff/appellee was awarded the sum of $28,415.00 and the defendant/appellant was awarded the sum of $19,085.00, to be paid from the agreed upon $50,000.00 sales price of the partitioned real estate in which the parties’ equity was valued at $42,500.00. It was additionally ordered that the defendant pay to counsel for the plaintiff the sum of $5,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and court costs, “the Court having determined that the Plaintiff was forced to abandon the real property at issue on or about February, 1980 and the Defendant having the exclusive, quiet enjoyment of the rental property since the date and counsel for Plaintiff having to file numerous Motions to compel discovery and to compel the prosecution of this cause.... ”
The amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded in a partition action is within the discretion of the trial court, Hasle v. Maasbrock, 120 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Criteria upon which the fee award is properly determined include “[t]he service performed, the responsibility incurred, the nature of the service, the skill required, the circumstances under which it was rendered, the customary charges for like service, the amount involved, and the ability of litigants to respond.” Adler v. Schekter, 197 So. 2d 46, 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Once the amounts of the attorneys’ fees have been established, the provisions of Section 64.081, Florida Statutes (1981), come into play:
“Every party shall be bound by the judgment to pay a share of the costs, including attorneys’ fees to plaintiff’s or defendant’s attorneys or to each of them commensurate with their services rendered and of benefit to the partition, to be determined on equitable principles in proportion to his interest....”
This “apportionment” under the statute has been interpreted to mean that the majority interest should bear the greater proportion of the fees awarded to his own attorney, as well as to the attorney for the minority interest, and the minority interest similarly should bear a share of fees in proportion to his interest. Adler v. Schekter, supra.
In the instant case, the record and the order appealed reflect that the trial court (a) did not apply all of the relevant criteria in arriving at the award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff’s counsel; (b) did not make a determination as to the amount of attorneys’ fees earned by counsel for the defendant; and (c) failed to apportion such fees between the parties in accordance with their respective interests in the partitioned property. For these reasons, the final judgment under appeal is reversed in part and remanded with directions to determine proper and reasonable attorneys’ fees and the respective liabilities of the parties therefor, in conformity with the principles expressed herein.
Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez-Fox v. Reyes, 79 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…each of them. The share is to be set with reference to the services rendered by the attorney(s) that are of benefit to the partition— “to be determined on equitable principles in proportion to the party’s interest.” Id.; see also Deshommes v. Bazin, 421 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“This ‘apportionment’ under the statute has been interpreted to mean that the majority interest should bear the greater proportion of the fees awarded to his own attorney, as well as to the attorney for the minority interest…
-
Robinson v. Barr, 133 So. 3d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ial court was required to consider and make such awards of attorney’s fees and costs as might be appropriate in accordance with the provisions of the statute. See Fernandez-Fox v. Reyes, 79 So. 3d 895, 896-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Deshommes v. Bazin, 421 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The circumstance that both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Barr prevailed on their claims for partition but not on their requests for additional relief is not a valid reason to disregard the command of the statute and to deny Mr. Robin…
-
Christyane Whitson v. Advocate 3413, 351 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…the greater proportion of the fees awarded to his own attorney, as well as to the attorney for the minority interest, and the minority interest similarly should bear a share of fees in proportion to his interest." Id. (quoting Deshommes v. Bazin, 421 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)); see also Parker v. Shecut, 597 S.E. 2d 793 (S.C. 2004) (holding that entitlement to appellate attorney's fees in a partition proceeding must be determined by the circuit court (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 15-61-110 (1976), whic…
Authorities Cited
- Adler v. Nathan Schekter et ux., 197 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hasle v. Maasbrock, 120 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)