BETTY JEAN LAWHON, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE L. LAWHON, 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.
The court held that a husband's obligation to pay spousal support during marriage, including attorney's fees when warranted, cannot be waived or contracted away in an antenuptial agreement. The trial court erred in denying the wife's postjudgment application for attorney's fees solely on the basis of the antenuptial agreement.
An antenuptial agreement cannot waive or contract away a spouse's obligation to pay attorney's fees when the normal criteria for such an award are satisfied. Attorney's fees for services rendered prior to judgment may be awarded at final hearing or in postjudgment proceedings, and the timing of the application does not allow the antenuptial agreement to control.
[1] An antenuptial agreement cannot waive or contract away a husband's obligation to provide spousal support, which includes the payment of attorney's fees when normal criter…
[2] Attorney's fees incurred for services rendered prior to the entry of a final judgment can be awarded in a postjudgment proceeding, even if an antenuptial agreement exists…
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“It is well settled that a husband's obligation to provide spousal support during the term of the marriage includes responsibility for the payment of attorney's fees when the normal criteria for the award of such fees are met. This obligation cannot be waived or contracted away in an antenuptial agreement.”
Establishes the core holding that antenuptial agreements cannot eliminate spousal support obligations including 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 intelligenceClarence and Betty Jean Lawhon were previously married and divorced on May 6, 1970. On September 1, 1970, they entered into an antenuptial agreement s…
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 Attorney'S Fees Award Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
On September 1, 1970, Clarence and Betty Jean Lawhon entered into an agreement entitled “Ante-Nuptial Agreement.” The agreement acknowledged that the parties had been previously married, divorced on May 6, 1970, and were about to marry again. The stated purpose of the agreement was to “fix and determine ... the rights and claims that will accrue to each of them in the estate and property of the other by reason of the marriage.”
Although the record before us is scant, we can conclude that the parties did remarry and that a subsequent dissolution of marriage action was commenced, resulting in a final judgment wherein the trial court reserved jurisdiction to consider the wife’s request for the payment of her attorney’s fees.
On September 11, 1990, the trial court entered a postjudgment order which contains findings which would, under normal circumstances, require the husband to pay all or part of the wife’s attorney’s fees. However, without citing to any particular provision of the agreement, the trial court concluded that the agreement precluded an award of fees and denied the wife’s application. We disagree and reverse.
It is well settled that a husband’s obligation to provide spousal support during the term of the marriage includes responsibility for the payment of attorney’s fees when the normal 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 and, thus, attorney’s fees applied for at final hearing or in a postjudgment proceeding fall into a separate category which the antenuptial agreement controls.1 This argument puts form over substance. So long as the claim and award are limited to services rendered prior to the entry of judgment, the award can be made at the time of final hearing or in an appropriate postjudgment proceeding. Mulhern v. Mulhern, 446 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984); Young v. Young, 322 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1976). Therefore, it was error to deny the wife’s application for attorney’s fees based on the antenuptial agreement.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . The husband asserts that he does not contest an award of temporary attorney’s fees made during the course of litigation,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hadi B. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005)…t of dissolution is entered even in the face of an antenuptial agreement to the contrary”); Appelbaum v. Appelbaum, 620 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that a waiver cannot be conclusive for the period before dissolution); Lawhon v. Lawhon, 583 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (noting that a husband’s duty of [*1158] spousal support during the marriage cannot be “waived or contracted away in an antenuptial agreement”); Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 597, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (holding that allowi…
-
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…2008). As long as the claim and award for temporary attorney’s fees “are limited to services rendered pnor to the entry of judgment, the award can be made at the time of final hearing or in an appropriate postjudgment proceeding.” Lawhon v. Lawhon, 583 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (emphasis added). “The evolution in our law, therefore, has been toward greater freedom of contract regarding post-dissolution spousal support, while recognizing the continuing obligations of support before the marriage is di…
-
Bettie Lou Hargis Blanton v. Zane C. Blanton, 654 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…e marriage includes responsibility for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs when the normal criteria for the award of such fees and costs are met. This obligation cannot be waived or contracted away in an antenuptial agreement. Lawhon v. Lawhon, 583 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings in which the trial court shall determine the wife’s entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991). CAMPBELL, A…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Young v. Young, 322 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Fechtel v. Fechtel, 556 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Russin v. Richard F. Greminger, P.A., 563 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)