DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF LARRY G. BOLLHEIMER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBRA J. BOLLHEIMER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed an attorney's fee award against a former husband because the trial court erroneously assessed fees against the individual rather than against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which was the actual party bringing the modification action.
Attorney's fees under section 57.105 must be assessed against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, not against the individual party on whose behalf the department acts.
[1] When the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services brings an action on behalf of an individual, any attorney's fees awarded under section 57.105 must be assessed a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services brought a modification action on behalf of Larry G. Bollheimer against his former wife seeking mo…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
HRS has appealed an award by the trial court of attorney’s fees, based upon section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1991), against a former husband, Larry G. Bollheimer, in an action which HRS, acting on his behalf, brought against his former wife, Debra J. Bollheimer, seeking modification of a dissolution judgment wherein no child support was awarded to either party.1 The modification action was voluntarily dismissed by HRS and thereafter the trial court granted the former wife’s motion for attorney’s fees, which was based upon the contention that the modification motion failed to raise any justiciable issue of either law or fact.
On the face of the record before us, it appears the trial court erroneously imposed the fee award against the wrong party. Assuming, arguendo, that there was ample basis for a section 57.105 fee award, that fee should have been assessed against HRS rather than against Larry Bollheimer, individually. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Holland, 602 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See generally Chapter 93-208, § 4, Laws of Florida. The failure of the trial court to assess the fee against HRS, however, has not been raised by cross-appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse the attorney’s fee award entered by the trial court.
REVERSED.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . See § 409.2564, Fla.Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Holland, 602 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)