GEORGIA E. WARNHOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK A. WARNHOFF, 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 court upheld a trial court's denial of attorney's fees to the wife in a post-judgment contempt proceeding for the husband's nonpayment of alimony. The decision clarifies that while contempt and ability to pay are relevant factors, the trial court has discretion to deny fees when the wife has not met her burden of proof regarding the husband's ability to pay and her own financial need.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the attorney's fee award. While contempt of the noncomplying spouse and the financial resources of both parties are relevant factors, the wife failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the husband's ability to pay and the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny the fees.
[1] Contempt of the noncomplying spouse is a factor for the trial court to consider in awarding attorney's fees in post-judgment proceedings.
[2] A spouse need not be completely unable to pay for the trial court to order the other spouse to pay attorney's fees.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“among the factors for the trial court to consider in the exercise of its discretion to award fees is the contempt of the noncomplying spouse”
Establishes that contempt is a relevant discretionary factor in awarding attorney's fees in family law cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife sought attorney's fees in a post-judgment contempt proceeding against the husband for his failure to pay court-ordered alimony. The trial cou…
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 Burden Of Proof For Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order, pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes, denying an attorney’s fee award to the wife in a post-judgment contempt proceeding for nonpayment of alimony.
We recognize that among the factors for the trial court to consider in the exercise of its discretion to award fees is the contempt of the noncomplying spouse. Planes v. Planes, 477 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). It is also true that it is not necessary that one spoiise be completely unable to pay in order for the trial court to order that the other spouse pay attorney’s fees. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, the financial resources of the parties, including need and ability to pay, remain among the factors for the court to consider. See Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See also McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Andrews v. Andrews, 409 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Here, the ability of the husband to pay an attorney’s fee award was in dispute and the appellant had assets from which her attorneys could be paid. The trial judge had the discretion to find that the wife failed to meet her burden of proof in these respects. Child v. Child, 474. So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
The appellant has failed to show on appeal that there was a lack of substantial competent evidence in support of the court’s order and has failed to meet her burden. The record does not support a finding of an abuse of discretion. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…erequisite to an assessment of attorney’s fees against the noncomplying party. The contempt of a noncomplying party is only one of several factors a trial court must examine in exercising its discretion to award attorney’s fees. Warnhoff v. Warnhoff 493 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1987). Additional factors to be considered include whether the modification or enforcement action brought or defended by the party seeking fees was meritorious or was litigated in good faith and…
-
Dralus v. Dralus, 627 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…attorney’s fees. Based upon the evi [*510] dence presented to the trial court, I would affirm that order. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). See also Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Warnhoff v. Warnhoff, 493 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1987). The majority, evidently not content with ruling on the issues raised by the parties, proceeded to consider the judicial process in relation to the attorney’s fees. They conclude that the…
-
Worthington v. Harty, 677 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…attorney’s fees in contempt proceedings incident to enforcing orders relating to support or custody. See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Foster v. Foster, 528 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Warnhoff v. Warnhoff, 493 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1987). We can discern no basis for adopting an interpretation of the statutory requirements applicable to fees incurred in enforcing mediation orders different than that applicable to fees impo…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Planes v. Marianthi Planes, 477 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 409 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)