SANDRA A. ORR, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. ORR, JR., 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 postdissolution modification proceeding, the former wife appealed orders denying increased alimony and child support, and challenging attorney's fees and costs awards. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fees award, reversed the exclusion of an expert witness fee for costs, and reversed and remanded the alimony and child support determinations after finding the trial court erred in refusing discovery of the husband's current financial information.
The court affirmed the attorney's fees award but reversed the disallowance of the expert witness fee, finding it relevant to the issues tried. The court held that the husband must provide at least a current financial statement as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.611(a), and reversed and remanded the alimony and child support determinations for reconsideration in light of the financial information.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by disallowing an expert witness fee when the testimony was relevant and other relevant costs incurred by the party were assessed agai…
[2] A party seeking modification of alimony or child support is entitled to discovery of the opposing party's current finances, including a current financial statement, even…
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“Following the holding in Schou, we determine that the husband must, at the least, be required to provide to the court and to the wife a current financial statement in the form now required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.611(a).”
Establishes the court's ruling that despite the husband's stipulation, he must provide current financial information for proper alimony and child support determinations.
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 were formerly married. The husband stipulated at the onset of litigation that he had the financial ability to pay any increases in alimony…
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 Petition For Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
In this postdissolution proceeding, the former wife challenges orders entered upon her petition for modification of alimony and child support. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The wife contends that the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to require the former husband to produce current information as to his finances; (2) denying an increase in alimony; (3) ordering an insufficient increase in child support; and (4) assessing an inadequate amount of her attorney’s fees and costs against the husband.
In regard to point four, we affirm in part and reverse in part. On the issue of attorney’s fees, the court made the findings required by Rowe1 and assessed against the husband the full amount of the fees which it found to be reasonably incurred. This determination does not constitute an abuse of discretion and we affirm on the issue of attorney’s fees. On the issue of costs, the trial court disallowed the expert witness fee of Joseph Tedder, a CPA testifying on the wife’s behalf. We determine that testimony to be relevant to the issues tried, and in consideration of the fact that the trial court assessed against the husband other relevant costs the wife incurred, we find it to be error not to have included in that assessment Mr. Tedder’s expert fees.
We now direct our attention to issue number one. At the onset of this round of litigation, the husband stipulated that he had the financial ability to pay any increases in alimony and child support that the court determined to be appropriate. Based on that stipulation and the Third District’s opinion in Braverman v. Braverman, 549 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the trial court refused to permit the wife to conduct discovery as to the husband’s current finances. The holding in Braverman has recently been rejected by our supreme court in Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1993). Following the holding in Schou, we determine that the husband must, at the least, be required to provide to the court and to the wife a current financial statement in the form now required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.611(a). Additional discovery of the husband’s finances is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Because the husband’s production of a current financial statement may influence the trial court’s determination on the issues of alimony and child support, we make no determination as to issues two and three. On remand, the trial court may reconsider these issues within its sound discretion.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. . Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whight v. Tymme Douglas Whight, 635 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…t in making a proper final determination. § 61.-14(1), Florida Statutes (1993); Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla.1993) (an increase in parental ability to pay of itself can be sufficient to warrant an increase in child support); Orr v. Orr, 621 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. McGurl, 614 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). It is not enough for counsel simply to argue “their respective positions regarding the facts and the applicable law,” absent a stipula…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993)
- Taylor v. State, 549 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)