JEROME NUDELMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTRAUD NUDELMAN, 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.
Trial court properly awarded temporary attorney's fees and costs in dissolution proceeding; Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe does not apply to temporary fees under section 61.071, and husband failed to establish error in the fee amount.
Temporary attorney's fees and costs awarded under section 61.071, Florida Statutes, are not subject to the expert testimony requirement established in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe because that case applies only to fees for services already rendered, not prospective fees for future litigation.
[1] The rule requiring expert testimony for setting attorney's fees established in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“because Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (1985) applies only to the assessment of fees for services which have already been rendered, it necessarily has no application to temporary fees awardable under section 61.071, Florida Statutes (1987) for representation during the future course of the litigation”
Court's explanation of why Rowe does not govern temporary fee awards in dissolution cases
In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court awarded temporary attorney's fees and costs to the wife after an unreported hearing. The husband appealed…
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 Temporary Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We find no error in the trial court’s awards, entered after an unreported hearing, of temporary attorney’s fees and costs in this dissolution proceeding. We specifically note our agreement with the wife’s position that, because Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (1985) applies only to the assessment of fees for services which have already been rendered, it necessarily has no application to temporary fees awardable under section 61.071, Florida Statutes (1987) for representation during the future course of the litigation. Cf. Muskin v. Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (rule requiring expert testimony for setting attorney’s fees not applicable “in every case” to award of fees pendente lite). Furthermore, the husband has failed to establish error in the amount of temporary fees assessed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Huxford v. Huxford, 231 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
The husband’s other points, including his contentions that the appellee’s notice of hearing did not properly refer to a motion for costs, as opposed to fees, and an alleged violation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(h) as it relates to the substitution of the wife’s present counsel for her previous one, fail to present either error or harm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…547 So. 2d 985, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse with directions to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing as to the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney’s fees and costs awarded to the wife. . Nudelman v. Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is not applicable because the proceeding in the present case dealt with an award of attorney’s fees for services already rendered and for costs actually incurred and not an award of temporary attorney’s fees awardable under Secti…
-
Rokicki v. Ewa Rokicki, 660 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…have been corroborated by expert testimony in the absence of a stipulation by counsel. We disagree. Under prior ease law, expert testimony was not required to support an award for interim fees for services yet to be performed. Nudelman v. Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266, 1266 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Muskin v. Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The husband argues alternatively that because neither the wife nor her counsel [*364] testified…
-
Eric Fernandez, M.D. v. Mese, 550 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…lorida (Case No. 83-6585) is hereby dismissed. See Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Nesbitt and Gersten, JJ, concur. Baskin would deny the motion. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(A)(3)(c)(iii) and commentary. See eg. Nudelman v. Nudelman 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989).…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Jones v. Christina, 184 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Muskin v. Renae Irene Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Jere O. Huxford v. Huxford, 231 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)