GARY L. HOLLINGSWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERIE A. HOLLINGSWORTH, 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 marital dissolution case, the Florida District Court of Appeal Second District addressed whether the trial judge's authority was valid under Payret v. Adams, whether the trial court properly valued marital assets and awarded alimony, and whether the trial court followed proper procedures in awarding attorney's fees. The court affirmed the property division and alimony awards but reversed the attorney's fees award for procedural non-compliance.
The administrative orders constituted valid temporary appointments under Payret and did not render the judgment voidable. The trial court's valuation of assets, division of property, and alimony award were within the trial judge's discretion and were supported by evidence. However, the trial court failed to follow the procedural requirements of Rowe in awarding attorney's fees, requiring reversal and remand on that issue.
[1] Administrative orders designating a county judge to act as a circuit judge are valid if they constitute temporary appointments.
[2] A trial court's determination of marital asset valuation, property division, and alimony awards will be affirmed if supported by evidence and within the trial court's dis…
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“We hold that these orders are in fact temporary appointments as defined by Payret, and that the judgment is not voidable on such grounds.”
Establishes that the administrative orders were valid temporary appointments under Payret, defeating the husband's challenge to the trial judge's authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary and Cherie Hollingsworth were married for twenty-four years. The case was heard by a county judge acting under administrative orders designating …
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The husband, Gary L. Hollingsworth, and Hollidale Farms, Inc., a closely held family corporation, appeal a final judgment dissolving the twenty-four year marriage of appellant and appellee-wife, Cherie A. Hollingsworth.
There are three primary issues raised for consideration. First, whether the judgment is voidable for the reason that the case was heard and determined by a county judge acting under a blanket administrative order designating him as an acting circuit judge in violation of Payret v. Adams, 500 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1986). Second, whether the trial court committed various errors in the determination of the value of the parties’ marital assets, the division of those assets, and an award of alimony. Third, whether the trial court erred in failing to follow the procedures set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), in making an award of attorney’s fees to the wife. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The record reflects that since 1977 the various chief judges of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit entered a series of administrative orders designating the county judge of Desoto County to hear and determine matters cognizable in the circuit court. Many of those orders, which were entered on a yearly basis, were contrary to the holding in Payret, which prohibits the designation of a county judge as a circuit judge on anything other than a temporary basis. We, however, are only concerned with the orders pertaining to Judge Holt-zendorf during the trial and entry of final judgment in this case. During the trial and at the time of the entry of the final judgment of dissolution, Judge Holtzendorf was acting pursuant to an order of appointment from January 5, 1987 until July 31, 1987. At the time of the entry of the supplemental final judgment Judge Holtzendorf was acting pursuant to an order of appointment from August 24, 1987 until October 31, 1987. We hold that these orders are in fact temporary appointments as defined by Payret, and that the judgment is not voidable on such grounds.
As to the trial court’s evaluation of marital assets, the division of property and the award of alimony, we need only to say that the record contains evidence which can support the trial court’s ruling on each of these matters. Because reasonable men could differ as to the result, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge on decisions within his discretion. Lamb v. Lamb, 500 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We, therefore, affirm these awards.
On the issue of attorney’s fees, the trial court failed to follow the procedural requirements of Rowe and its progeny in this court. See Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Tucker v. Tucker, 513 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We, therefore, reverse the award of attorney’s fees to the wife and remand this cause to the trial court for a determination of fees in accordance with Rowe.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medeiros v. Medeiros, 549 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…er an order in compliance with Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). See also, Wilkins v. Wilkins, 546 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Maas v. Maas, 541 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 540 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). REVERSED AND REMANDED. [*701] DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ„ concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Payret v. The Honorable Don T. Adams, 500 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1986)
- Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lamb v. Hoyt L. Lamb, 500 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 513 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)