JEREMY OFFICE
v.
SHERRY OFFICE
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.
Former Husband appeals a trial court's order enforcing a dissolution judgment and awarding attorney's fees to Former Wife. The appellate court affirmed the enforcement order but reversed the fee award, finding insufficient factual findings to support the award under either the need standard or the inequitable conduct doctrine.
The trial court's order granting enforcement is affirmed. However, the order awarding attorney's fees is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the necessary factual findings to support the fee award under either the need standard or the inequitable conduct doctrine.
[1] A trial court's order enforcing a final judgment of dissolution and premarital settlement agreement will be affirmed if properly granted.
[2] An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding requires the trial court to state the basis for the award.
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“However, it is not apparent from the record that Former Wife had a need for fees.”
Identifies the trial court's failure to establish the threshold requirement for awarding fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeremy and Sherry Office were parties to a final judgment of dissolution and premarital settlement agreement. Sherry moved to enforce the judgment, an…
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
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Office (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Sherry Office’s (“Former Wife’s”) motion to enforce the parties’ final judgment of dissolution and premarital settlement agreement. Former Husband also appeals the trial court’s subsequent order awarding Former Wife attorney’s fees for the enforcement proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s order granting Former Wife’s motion to enforce without further comment. However, we reverse the order awarding fees and remand for the trial court to indicate the basis for the award.
The trial court’s order awarding fees simply stated that Former Wife was entitled to fees and cited to Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), and Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998), to support that assertion. However, it is not apparent from the record that Former Wife had a need for fees. See Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1999)). Although the trial court’s citation to Bitterman indicates that it may have awarded Former Wife fees under the inequitable conduct doctrine, the order does
not list the specific factual findings necessary to conclude that Former Husband engaged in inequitable conduct. See Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002). Therefore, we reverse the order and remand this matter back to the trial court to make the necessary factual findings to support either a ruling that Former Wife has a need for fees or that Former Husband’s conduct justified the imposition of fees under the “inequitable conduct doctrine.” See Bitterman, 714 So. 2d at 365.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Bitterman v. Anette Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998)
- Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)