CARLA KAY LIVINGSTON FECHTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
REGINALD ALBERT FECHTEL, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court upheld the validity of an antenuptial agreement that limited the wife's claims to ten dollars, but reversed the trial court's enforcement of the agreement's waiver of attorney's fees, holding that a spouse's obligation to pay the other spouse's pre-judgment attorney's fees cannot be contracted away.
The antenuptial agreement was valid under the requirements established in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, except that a husband's obligation to pay his wife's pre-judgment attorney's fees during coverture cannot be contracted away and therefore the waiver of attorney's fees was invalid.
[1] An antenuptial agreement is valid if it meets the established legal requirements for such agreements.
[2] A husband's obligation for spousal support during marriage includes liability for the wife's pre-judgment attorney's fees.
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 husband's spousal support obligation during coverture includes liability (as determined using the usual needs/ability to pay test) for his wife's pre-judgment attorney's fees and cannot be contracted away.”
Establishes the core holding that attorney's fees cannot be waived in an antenuptial agreement because they are an inseparable part of spousal support obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties discussed antenuptial agreement provisions for two months before marriage and signed the agreement several hours before the ceremony. The …
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 Antenuptial Agreement Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
CONRAD, R. F., Associate Judge.
The appellant wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage wherein the trial court upheld an antenuptial agreement entered into by the husband and wife. Except as to the agreement’s provisions on attorney’s fees, we agree that the antenup-tial agreement was valid.
For two months prior to marriage, the parties discussed various provisions for an antenuptial agreement. The agreement signed by the parties several hours prior to the marriage ceremony stated plainly and obviously that the husband’s property was valued in excess of $339,000, while the wife’s property was valued in excess of $1,000. One provision was that in the event of a dissolution of the marriage the husband would pay to the wife the sum of ten dollars as “full share for any rights to alimony, support, maintenance and attorney’s fees, and any other claim which the wife may have against the husband.” Although the wife proffered testimony at the final hearing as to the amount of her attorney’s fees, such evidence was not admitted. The final judgment ordered the husband to pay ten dollars to the wife, and no attorney’s fees were awarded.
We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the well-established requirements of Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1962), have been met. Therefore, except as regarding attorney’s fees, the appellant is bound by the terms of the antenuptial agreement.
A husband’s spousal support obligation during coverture includes liability (as determined using the usual needs/ability to pay test) for his wife’s pre-judgment attorney’s fees and cannot be contracted away. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972); Mulhern v. Mulhern, 446 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984); Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 597 (Fla.4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986). See also Lindsay v. Lindsay, 163 So. 2d 336 (Fla.3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 170 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1964).
We reverse the trial court to the extent that the trial court held the waiver of attorney’s fees to be valid and remand this cause for consideration of a proper motion for attorney’s fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawhon v. Lawhon, 583 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ormal criteria for the award of such fees are met. This obligation cannot be waived or contracted away in an antenuptial agreement. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972); Veiga v. Veiga, 563 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fechtel v. Fechtel, 556 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), appeal dismissed, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986). Confronted by this authority, the husband argues that the obligation of spousal support terminated on the date of the final judgment…
-
Dyer v. Beverly & Tittle, P.A., 777 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…n short, they are final in all respects. Second, in dissolution proceedings the liability of one spouse for the payment of the other’s, attorney’s fees incurred before entry of final judgment may be deemed an item of support. See Fechtel v. Fechtel, 556 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Young v. Young, 322 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert.denied, 333 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1976). Here, the record contains sufficient evidence to show that the final judgment for Ms. Dyer’s attorney’s fees and costs were “so connecte…
-
Hartman v. Hartman, 761 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…of the dissolution judgment cannot be waived in a prenuptial agreement. See Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972); Blanton v. Blanton, 654 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Veiga v. Veiga, 563 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fechtel v. Fechtel, 556 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). On appeal, appellate counsel for both parties agree that Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997) sets the guidelines for attorney’s fees in such cases. In Rosen, the court said that need and ability to pay were the primary el…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)
- Annabelle G. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972)
- Mulhern v. Mulhern, 446 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- August Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Lindsay v. Lindsay, 163 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Duval v. Kirk, 170 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1964)
- Gobler v. Gust K. Newberg Constr. Co., 170 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1964)