J. A. L.
v.
R. M. A.
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.
The appellate court affirmed an award of attorney's fees to the mother in a paternity action but reversed the payment schedule, finding it unreasonably long. The court remanded for the trial court to establish a more reasonable payment plan.
The court held that the payment schedule was manifestly unreasonable because it would take over twelve years to pay the award. The court affirmed the award of fees but reversed the payment schedule, remanding for a reasonable schedule to be established.
[1] A payment schedule for attorney's fees in family law cases that extends beyond seven to thirteen years is manifestly unreasonable and must be revised to establish a reaso…
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“This type of payment plan has been found to be "manifestly unreasonable."”
Establishes the court's primary reason for reversing the payment schedule.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a paternity action, the mother was awarded appellate attorney's fees. The trial court set a payment schedule for the father that would take over tw…
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 Motion For Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge. In this paternity action, the mother, J.A.L., appeals from the order on her motion for appellate attorney's fees and the order denying her motion for rehearing. We affirm the award of appellate attorney's fees to the mother but reverse and remand for the trial court to establish a reasonable time schedule for the father, R.M.A., to pay the award.
- 2 - The trial court found that the mother was entitled to $2975 in appellate attorney's fees and that the father had the ability to pay.
However, the court's order allows the father to wait until he has fulfilled his obligation to pay the mother's attorney's fees and costs incurred in the trial court action1 before he is required to begin making $200 monthly payments to the mother's appellate attorneys. Under the present payment schedule, it will be over twelve years before the $36,493.67 trial court attorney's fee award is paid and the appellate attorneys are compensated. This type of payment plan has been found to be "manifestly unreasonable." See Wright v. Wright, 965 So. 2d 1168, 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that it was manifestly unreasonable to give the former husband up to thirteen years to pay the former wife's attorney's fee award); see also Hood v. Hood, 535 So. 2d 715, 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversing the order giving the former husband a seven-year payment period); Urbieta v. Urbieta, 469 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that the trial court's order establishing an eight-year payment schedule was "manifestly erroneous" where the former husband had the ability to pay). "Allowing such a [payment] structure would discourage competent attorneys from representing clients in [paternity and child support] cases, thereby defeating the purpose of the statute providing for attorney's fees and costs . . . ." Wright, 965 So. 2d at 1170.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. 1See R.M.A. v. J.A.S., 269 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N. Am. Mortg. Invs. v. The Reef Club Condo. Ass'n, 469 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Hood v. Louie Franklin Hood, 535 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- R.M.A. v. J.A.S., 269 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
- Wright v. Wright, 965 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)