GABLE, JR.,
v.
GABLE
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 reversed a trial court's equitable distribution order and award of attorney's fees in a dissolution case. The court found an impermissible double credit in the distribution and a lack of required findings for the attorney's fees award.
Yes, the trial court erred by providing an impermissible double credit in the equitable distribution. Yes, the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees without the requisite specific findings.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a family law matter without specific findings regarding hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended, and appropriateness of reduction…
[2] When an equitable distribution scheme places former spouses in substantially the same financial positions with equal abilities to pay attorney's fees, awarding attorney's…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In awarding attorney’s fees, the trial court must make specific findings as to hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed the trial court's rulings on equitable distribution, a continuance motion, a motion in limine, child support, and attorney…
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 Need For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dissolution appeal, the former husband seeks review of the trial court’s rulings on equitable distribution, a motion for continuance and motion in limine, child support, and trial court attorney’s fees. As explained below, we reverse the trial court’s order addressing equitable distribution. We also reverse the award of trial court attorney’s fees. We reject all other grounds raised by Appellant.
Appellee properly concedes that the trial court erred in providing for an impermissible double credit of the farming equipment in the equitable distribution scheme.
“In awarding attorney’s fees, the trial court must make specific findings as to hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.” Davis v. Davis, 613 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see also Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151-52 (Fla. 1985). An award of attorney’s fees without the requisite findings is error even if there is competent substantial evidence to support the award. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 141 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The record does not contain any evidence presented below concerning the hourly rate, number of hours expended, or the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors. Accordingly, we reverse the award of trial court attorney’s fees. The trial court must reconsider the appropriateness of an attorney’s fees award after it reconsiders the equitable distribution and considers any changes to the parties’ relative financial circumstances. We note that, because the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees is to ensure that the parties have a similar ability to obtain competent counsel, “[i]f the equitable distribution scheme places the parties in substantially the same financial positions with equal abilities to pay attorney’s fees, it is an abuse of discretion to award attorney’s fees to one former spouse.” See Stewart v. Stewart, 290 So. 3d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). If the court again awards Appellee attorney’s fees, it must make written findings that after the equitable distribution, Appellee remains in need of assistance to obtain competent counsel. See id.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KELSEY and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Trammell v. Showell Farms & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 613 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 141 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 2017 WL 3495338 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)