RONALD J. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH MARTIN, 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.
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees and costs before disbursing funds awarded as an advance.
The trial court awarded the wife attorney's fees and costs and ordered the husband to advance funds. The wife later moved to disburse these funds, but…
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 Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Ronald J. Martin [husband], appeals a non-final order authorizing the disbursement of funds held as an advance for additional fees and costs in the parties’ divorce proceeding. We reverse.
The trial court conducted a hearing in which it awarded the wife attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, the trial court ordered the husband to advance additional funds “as and for an advance for additional fees and costs.”
A few months later, the wife filed a motion to authorize the disbursement of the funds held as an advance for additional fees and costs. At the hearing, the husband’s counsel objected and demanded an evidentiary hearing as to the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court took the position that its prior order awarding the advance was the actual award of fees and costs and that an evidentiary hearing was not required prior to disbursing the funds.
Prior to awarding attorney’s fees for services already rendered and for costs already incurred, a trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing as to the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and costs awarded.1 See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), holding modified sub nom., Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990); Grabow v. Grabow, 419 So. 2d 340, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Schorb v. Schorb, 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 Section 61.071, Florida Statutes (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
William Bateman & Est. of Steven J. Slaughter v. Serv. Ins. Co., 836 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tted). Prior to awarding attorney’s fees for services already rendered and for costs already incurred, a trial court must hold an eviden-tiary hearing to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and costs awarded. See Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Moreover, when the record contains some competent substantial evidence supporting the fee order, but fails to include evidentiary support such as testimony from the attorney performing the services, the appellate court will rever…
-
Larrauri v. Larrauri, 584 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…f discretion in the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction to award rehabilitative alimony. Finally, we reverse the attorney’s fee award; the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing and to make the requisite findings. Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The remaining point lacks merit. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. . The trial court’s characterization of the award is not dispositive on issue of the wife’s entitlement. Cruz v. Cruz, 574 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 199…
-
Greseth v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 604 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…an evidentiary hearing as provided in section 447.503(5), Florida Statutes (1991), in order to be accorded basic due process. See State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Ward, 509 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); In Re Attorney’s Fees Awarded in State of Florida v. Warman, 415 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Standard Guaranty Inc. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990), the supreme court held that for the purposes of determining…
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)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Graham M. Schorb v. Schorb, 547 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Nudelman v. Waltraud Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Grabow v. Grabow, 419 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)