VICKIE B. SCHUTT, FORMER WIFE
v.
JEFFREY P. SCHUTT, FORMER HUSBAND
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.
This case reviews attorney's fees and costs from a dissolution of marriage. The appellate court affirmed most issues but reversed and remanded regarding the successor judge's modification of income and the denial of attorney's fees to the former wife, finding both to be an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court held that the successor judge erred in modifying the former wife's income as established in the final judgment, and that denying the former wife any attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion due to the substantial income disparity.
[1] A successor judge cannot review, modify, or reverse the final orders of a predecessor on the merits and on the same facts, absent mistake or fraud.
[2] A substantial income disparity between former spouses constitutes an abuse of discretion when a trial court denies a request for attorney's fees and costs.
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“A successor judge generally cannot review, modify or reverse, upon the merits, on the same facts, the final orders of his predecessor unless there exists some special circumstances such as mistake or fraud perpetrated on the court.”
Establishes the rule against successor judges modifying prior final orders.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former wife appealed issues related to attorney's fees and costs from her dissolution of marriage proceedings. Specifically, she challenged the su…
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 Successor Judge Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves review of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the course of dissolution of marriage proceedings. Former wife has raised six issues, all of which we affirm except as to (a) the successor judge’s increase of the former wife’s income beyond that established in the final judgment; and (b) the failure to award any attorney’s fees to the former wife despite the disparities between her income and assets and those of her former husband. As to (a), we reverse and remand for further proceedings to be based upon the income established for the former wife in the final judgment. Lawyers Co-op. Pub. Co. v. Williams, 5 So. 2d 871, 872 (Fla. 1942) (“A successor judge generally cannot review, modify or reverse, upon the merits, on the same facts, the final orders of his
predecessor unless there exists some special circumstances such as mistake or fraud perpetrated on the court.”); Bailey v. Bailey, 204 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (“The courts of this state have repeatedly held that a successor judge cannot review, modify or reverse, upon the merits, on the same facts, the final orders of his predecessor, absent mistake or fraud.”). As to (b), we find that it was an abuse of discretion to award no attorney’s fees to the former wife. “Where the parties’ income disparity is substantial, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a request for attorney’s fees and costs. . . . Earning two and [one half times] more than one’s former spouse constitutes a substantial income disparity.” Martin v. Martin, 959 So. 2d 803, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Kelly v. Kelly, 491 So. 2d 330, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (finding that “trial court should have awarded her an attorney’s fee” because the former wife had a substantially smaller income than the former husband, modest liquid assets, and would be in a far worse financial position than the former husband should she have to pay her own fees). REVERSED and REMANDED. MAKAR and KELSEY, JJ., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs in result with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)…The rule would appear-to be otherwise with respect to interlocutory orders or decrees. Jones v. McConnon & Co., 100 Fla. 1158, 130 So. 760; 48 C.J.S., Judges, § 56(c), p. 1021. In the later case of Lawyers Co-op. Pub. Co. v. Williams, 149 Fla. 390, 5 So. 2d 871, 872, relied on by the appellants, this Court expressly approved the general rule first mentioned above. This Court there said: “A successor judge generally cannot review, modify or reverse, upon the merits, on the same facts, the final orders of h…
-
Anne E. Tingle v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1971)…J. L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 826 (1924) ; State v. City of Sarasota, 154 Fla. 250, 17 So. 2d 109, 111 (1944). . Bamagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So. 2d 648, 653 (Fla.1960). . Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co. v. Williams, 149 Bla. S90, 5 So. 2d 871 (1942). (Involving Motion for New Trial, Petition for Rehearing, Motion to Vacate the Pinal Judgment) . 33 C.J. Judges § 104 (p. 973) ; 48 C.J.S. Judges § 56c (pp. 1021-1022) ; Annot., 132 A.L.R. 14 (1940). . Id. . Newburyport Inst, for Savings v…
-
Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc., 288 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…n Balfe is one which precludes a successor judge from reviewing, modifying or reversing a final order or judgment in a cause made by hjs predecessor (unless for mistake or fraud). See to like effect, Lawyers Co-op Pub. Co. v. Williams, 149 Fla. 390, 5 So. 2d 871, 872; Groover v. Walker, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 312. On occasion, for varied reasons or circumstances, two or more judges of a circuit will act separately at different stages of a pending case. When that occurs they have equal powers, and each has the…
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
- Lawyers Co-Operative Publ'g Co. v. Bradford G. Williams, 149 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1942)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 204 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Patricia (McGeachy) Kelly v. Kelly, 491 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Martin v. Martin, 959 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)