MORRIS S. RAHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS A. RAHMAN, 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 this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court's final judgment awarding permanent periodic alimony to the wife and requiring him to pay two-thirds of her attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution judgment and the requirement to pay attorney's fees, but reversed and remanded the specific fee amount determination because the hours claimed were not reasonably supported by the record.
The court affirmed the final judgment of dissolution, including the requirement that the husband pay two-thirds of the wife's reasonable attorney's fees. However, the court reversed the trial court's determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee, finding that 109.2 hours cannot be justified for routine dissolution issues with a limited trial record, and capped the reasonable fee at $10,000.
[1] A trial court's award of attorney's fees may be reversed if the record does not support the number of hours expended by counsel.
[2] Routine legal issues in a dissolution case, with limited witnesses and a concise record, may not justify an extensive number of billable hours for attorney's fees.
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“The legal issues presented by this case were routine issues involved in dissolution cases, and the only witnesses at trial were the wife and the husband.”
Establishes the basis for the court's conclusion that the hours claimed were excessive given the straightforward nature of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris S. Rahman and Doris A. Rahman were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court found that the wife's attorney expended 109…
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 Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Morris S. Rahman (the husband) appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution which equitably distributed the parties’ property, awarded permanent periodic alimony to Doris A. Rahman (the wife), and ordered the husband to pay two-thirds of the wife’s attorney’s fees. The husband also appeals the trial court’s post-judgment order which awarded the wife $11,658.66, representing two-thirds of her attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution in its entirety, including the requirement that the husband pay two-thirds of the wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees; however, we reverse the trial court’s order determining a reasonable attorney’s fee and remand for further proceedings.
In its attorney’s fee order, the trial court found that the 109.2 hours expended in this case by the wife’s attorney were reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the difficulty of the trial. After closely reviewing the record, we are unable to find support for the number of hours expended in this case. The legal issues presented by this case were routine issues involved in dissolution cases, and the only witnesses at trial were the wife and the husband. Further, the trial court proceeding produced a record of only 200 pages and a transcript of 160 pages. The services rendered herein cannot justify a fee in excess of $10,000. Accordingly, we reverse the attorney’s fee order and remand this cause with directions for the trial court to enter an order requiring the husband to pay two-thirds of $10,000, as well as two-thirds of the wife’s costs of $1167.99,1 for a total award of $7,445.33. See Guthrie v. Guthrie, 357 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
COBB, W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . The husband has not challenged the amount of costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. Pollock, 722 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ay to the wife, as and for rehabilitative alimony, the sum of $600.00 until the sale [and] closing of their home.” After a hearing, the trial court found that the former wife was competent at the time she signed the agreement. In Pollock v. Pollock, 643 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we affirmed the denial of relief, but we also pointed out that the affirmance was without prejudice to the former wife to petition for modification to extend or increase the rehabilitative alimony, or to convert it to permanent…
Authorities Cited
- Elbon Burnett Harden v. Harden, 357 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)