ARTHUR SHIELDS, APPELLANT,
v.
LISSI SHIELDS, 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 dissolution action, the husband appeals from a judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs to the wife. The appellate court affirms the costs award but reverses and remands the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings as required by Florida law, despite having sufficient evidence to support the award.
The trial court had sufficient evidence of the wife's need for fees and the husband's ability to pay them from the October 29 hearing, so the costs award is affirmed. However, the trial court erred in failing to set forth specific findings regarding the hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended, and appropriateness of reduction or enhancement figures as required by the Rowe standard, necessitating remand for a new hearing on attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court may reserve jurisdiction to determine financial matters, including attorney's fees and costs, at a subsequent date after entering a final judgment.
[2] A party's need for attorney's fees and the other party's ability to pay can be established at an earlier hearing, even if the specific amount of fees is determined later.
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“Rowe requires the trial court not only to determine the proper amount of attorney's fees by considering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended in the case, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement figures, but also to set forth specific findings as to these factors.”
Establishes the mandatory requirements for attorney's fee awards under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a dissolution judgment on July 12, 1985, and reserved jurisdiction to determine financial matters. On October 29, 1985, a hear…
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 Attorney'S Fees Award Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The husband in this dissolution action appeals from the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to appellee. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence at the fee and cost hearing on which to base such an award and that the trial court failed to properly determine the amount of fees awarded. We affirm the award as to costs but remand on the issue of attorney’s fees.
The trial court’s dissolution judgment, entered on July 12, 1985, reserved jurisdiction to consider financial matters at a subsequent date. On October 29, 1985, a hearing was held in which the trial court divided the parties’ property and awarded the wife attorney’s fees and costs, the amount to be determined by the parties themselves or by the court in the event the parties could not reach an agreement. As no agreement was reached, the trial court, at a hearing on April 9, 1986, awarded appel-lee $22,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,259.95 in costs, based upon the testimony of an expert witness and the argument of counsel.
Appellant challenges the award on two grounds: (1) that no evidence was presented at the fee and cost hearing of appellee’s need or his ability to pay attorney’s fees and (2) that the trial court failed to follow the proper criteria in determining attorney’s fees under Florida Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
We reject appellant’s first argument. A determination had already been made at the hearing on October 29 that appellee had a demonstrated need for attorney’s fees and that appellant had sufficient funds to meet this obligation. Jurisdiction was reserved solely to determine the amount. Although appellant has failed to provide us with the transcript of the October proceedings during which the majority of the evidence of the parties’ financial standing was presented, we find that the record of the fee and cost hearing contains substantial, competent evidence from which the trial court was able to determine the wife’s need and appellant’s ability to pay, Seinfeld v. Seinfeld, 363 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The record shows that appellant was entitled to a pension and profit sharing funds and that appellee was unemployed at the time of the final hearing. Appellant did not deny the existence of these funds or contest his ability to pay attorney’s fees, other than to argue that he was an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections and did not have any new income.
Appellant’s second argument has merit. Rowe requires the trial court not only to determine the proper amount of attorney’s fees by considering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended in the case, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement figures, but also to set forth specific findings as to these factors.
Although we find that the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have based its award according to the criteria set forth in Rowe, the trial court erred in failing to set forth its specific findings. See also Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the award of $1,259.95 in costs, but reverse and remand for a new hearing on attorney’s fees, wherein the trial judge must set forth his findings as required by Rowe.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Beck v. Sydney Beck, 852 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…s in relation to the size of the marital estate and, without making any factual findings, made a substantially reduced fee award. The trial court erred by failing to set forth the specific findings required by Rowe and Rosen. See Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (reversing fee award where trial court failed to make required Rowe findings). On remand, the trial court must redetermine the amount of the Wife’s fees and set forth the findings required by Rowe and Rosen. The Wife’s final argu…
-
Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…rial court determines that there is an entitlement to attorney’s fees, it must also set forth findings regarding the factors that justify the specific amount awarded. See Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Moreover, while the trial court has discretion to allow payment of an award of attorney’s fees over time, it must set forth some factual basis for imposing the specific payment plan selected. See Lowman v. Lowman, 724 So. 2…
-
Maas v. Maas, 541 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…oncerning the number of hours expended, hourly rate, etc. and awarded the wife an even $10,000. Thus, the final judgment is facially invalid since it fails to set forth specific findings regarding the amount of fees awarded. See, Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We note in passing that during the hearing there was testimony from the ex-wife’s attorney that: (1) he has not attempted nor would he attempt to collect any fee from his clien…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Seinfeld v. Seinfeld, 363 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)