ADAM ROKICKI, APPELLANT,
v.
EWA ROKICKI, 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 family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of temporary alimony to the wife but affirmed the award of temporary attorney's fees. The court found that the $1,000 monthly alimony award was unsupported by substantial evidence once child support was factored into the wife's financial needs, but upheld the $5,000 attorney's fee award as properly based on affidavits from practicing attorneys.
The court reversed the temporary alimony award of $1,000 per month as excessive and unsupported by evidence, holding that the wife's actual monthly deficiency was only $138 when child support was considered. The court affirmed the $5,000 temporary attorney's fees award, finding that expert testimony was not required under prior law to support interim fees and that the husband's failure to object below precluded the objection on appeal.
[1] An award of temporary alimony is unsupported by substantial competent evidence when the wife's stated monthly deficiency, after accounting for child support, is minimal.
[2] An award of temporary attorney's fees may be supported by affidavits from practicing attorneys regarding the reasonableness of fees for services yet to be performed.
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“We agree with the husband that the figure of one thousand dollars per month is unsupported by substantial competent evidence in the record. When the child support is taken into account, the wife's monthly deficiency amounts to $138 dollars.”
Establishes the court's finding that the alimony award was excessive and not justified by the evidence of the wife's actual financial need
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a hearing on the wife's motion for temporary spousal support and attorney's fees, the husband failed to attend due to emergency dental work, th…
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 Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a non-final order granting appellee wife temporary alimony and attorney’s fees. The appellant husband contends that the awards are not supported by substantial competent evidence demonstrating the needs of the wife and his ability to pay. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
A hearing was held on the wife’s motion for temporary spousal support and attorney’s fees and motion for contempt. The husband was properly noticed, but did not attend the hearing due to emergency dental work. The judge offered to postpone the hearing but the husband’s counsel declined the offer. The judge therefore based the alimony and attorney’s fees awards solely on the parties’ financial affidavits, the testimony of the wife and affidavits from two practicing attorneys as to the amount of fees necessary to finish the case.
The husband first contends that the wife never established her need for temporary alimony of $1,000 dollars per month. The husband had been previously ordered to pay $1,050 per month in child support. The wife testified that all her bills were current and paid. Her financial affidavit shows that it includes expenses for child support. The affidavit indicated a monthly deficiency of $1,188 dollars without consideration of the amount of child support that she was receiving per month.
We agree with the husband that the figure of one thousand dollars per month is unsupported by substantial competent evidence in the record. When the child support is taken into account, the wife’s monthly deficiency amounts to $138 dollars. There was no testimony adduced which indicated that a greater amount would be needed to cover the wife’s current expenses. Therefore, the award of $1,000 per month in temporary alimony was excessive and must be reversed. See Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The cause is remanded with directions to set an appropriate lower figure supported by the evidence.
The husband also argues that the $5,000 award for temporary attorney’s fees was improperly based solely on affidavits from two practicing attorneys and was not supported by testimony from the wife and her counsel as to their fee arrangement.
Florida Statute section 61.16(1) as amended in 1993, states that corroborating expert testimony shall not be required to support any award made under Chapter 61. Ch. 93-188, § 6, Laws of Fla. However, that amendment is inapplicable to this case. The husband argues that under prior law, an award for interim fees must have been corroborated by expert testimony in the absence of a stipulation by counsel. We disagree. Under prior ease law, expert testimony was not required to support an award for interim fees for services yet to be performed. Nudelman v. Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266, 1266 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Muskin v. Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
The husband argues alternatively that because neither the wife nor her counsel testified as to their fee arrangement, the amount awarded was unsupported by substantial competent evidence. However, the husband made no objection to the lack of such testimony below, so he is precluded from asserting it on appeal. Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222, 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we reverse the award of temporary alimony and affirm the award of temporary attorney’s fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broadfoot v. Rocio E. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…entered without required findings, then a motion for rehearing should be filed, requesting findings. As a general rule, we decline to consider claims which were not presented in the first instance in the trial court. See, e.g., Rokicki v. Rokicki, 660 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In this case there is no indication that the need for statutory findings was called to the attention of the trial court. Where, as here, the basis for the award is reasonably clear and supported by the record, we decline to…
-
Evans v. Deidre Murphy, 159 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Murphy v. Murphy, 96 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Rokicki v. Rolcicki, 660 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); [*200] Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Pineiro v. Am. Express Card Servs. Co., Barry S. Franklin & Assocs., P.A., 105 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ns on appeal that the law firm did not offer either expert or sworn testimony to support the rate charged, she failed to raise these objec [*616] tions in the trial court, so the issues were not properly preserved for appeal. See Rokicki v. Rokicki, 660 So. 2d 362, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). As to the amount awarded, Pineiro has not carried her burden of demonstrating error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). We reverse that portion of the final judgment that entitle…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dwyn Daniels Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Nudelman v. Waltraud Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Jones v. Christina, 184 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Muskin v. Renae Irene Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)