ROBERT P. GERONEMUS, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
DIANN F. GERONEMUS, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 trial court erred in denying attorney's fees solely because the husband was not found in contempt.
The wife sought attorney's fees after the husband allegedly allowed her medical insurance to lapse, violating the final judgment of dissolution. The t…
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 Dissolution Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The initial appeal in this marriage dissolution action was voluntarily dismissed, but the cross appeal remains. Diann F. Gero-nemus (wife), cross appeals the trial court’s order denying her attorney’s fees for bringing a motion for contempt against Robert P. Geronemus (husband). We reverse.
The final judgment of dissolution required the husband, among other things, to pay for the maintenance of the wife’s medical insurance for twelve years. ' Because the husband allegedly allowed the wife’s medical insurance to lapse, the wife filed a motion for contempt. The trial court denied the motion and also denied the wife her attorney’s fees. The court’s stated reason for refusing to award fees was that the husband was not in contempt.
An adjudication of contempt, however, “is not a prerequisite to an assessment of attorney’s fees against the noncomplying party. The contempt of a noncomplying party is only one of several factors a trial court must examine in exercising its discretion to award attorney’s fees.” Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988). “Additional factors to be considered include whether the modification or enforcement action brought or defended by the party seeking fees was meritorious or was litigated in good faith and whether the actions of one party compelled the other party to resort to the courts for a remedy.” Id.
Because the trial court denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees solely on the ground that the husband was not in contempt, the trial court erred. Accordingly, the trial court is reversed and the matter is remanded with direction to determine the wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees as well as the wife’s financial need and the husband’s financial ability.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Miller, 661 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ouse’s contempt may be taken into account in assessing attorney’s fees, the parties’ need and ability to pay still remain among the factors to be considered in establishing the predicate for such an award.”); see also Ger [*382] onemus v. Geronemus, 599 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988). We therefore reverse the portion of the order below denying an attorney’s fee and remand for consistent proceedings. The order is aff…
Authorities Cited
- Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)