DAVID CARLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREE CARLSON, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an attorney's fee award in post-judgment settlement agreement enforcement proceedings, holding that the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory factors for fee awards, particularly the recipient's financial need.
The court reversed the fee award, holding that financial need is a fundamental component of 'financial resources of both parties' under section 61.16, and a party seeking fee relief must demonstrate some need; it is insufficient to show merely that the adverse party has greater ability to pay or that an award would cause relative financial strain.
[1] Financial need is the primary factor to be considered when awarding attorney's fees in dissolution of marriage proceedings.
[2] A party seeking attorney's fees in dissolution of marriage proceedings must demonstrate financial need.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“financial need is the hidden notion in the statutory term 'financial resources of both parties.'”
Establishes that demonstrating financial need is essential to an attorney's fee award under Florida Statute section 61.16
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Carlson challenged an order awarding attorney's fees to his former wife Andree Carlson in proceedings involving enforcement and interpretation o…
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 Resources Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Former husband David Carlson challenges an order awarding former wife attorney’s fees in proceedings involving the enforcement and interpretation of a settlement agreement. Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We reverse the fee award.
In Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997) the supreme court explained that the financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to be considered when considering a fee award. The court also outlined other relevant factors including the scope and history of the litigation; the duration of the litigation; the merits of the respective positions; whether the litigation is brought or maintained primarily to harass (or whether a defense is raised mainly to frustrate or stall); and the existence and course of prior or pending litigation. None of these factors were the basis of any fee request below.
We find that this case is governed by our recent decision in Satter v. Satter, 709 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In Satter, we considered whether a former spouse can be required under section 61.16 to reimburse the other for all or part of her attorney’s fees incurred in post judgment proceedings where the recipient had demonstrated no need for fees. We held that “financial need is the hidden notion in the statutory term ‘financial resources of both parties.’” Id. at 619. We held further that the party seeking relief must show some need; it is not enough to simply show that the adverse party’s ability to pay the fees is greater than the party seeking relief or that an award is based on the relative financial strain of paying attorney’s fees. Id; See also Wertheim v. Wertheim, 711 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
The hearing before the special master in the present case focused on the parties’ intent with regard to how former husband was to pay former wife $600,000 and whether he could do so with retirement funds that required a QDRO with its resulting tax implications. There was no testimony directed toward demonstrating former wife’s need or former husband’s ability to pay fees. Similarly there was no testimony with regard to Rosen’s other relevant considerations.
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting and setting the amount of fees. GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, C.J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I cannot say on this record, applying Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997), that the award of fees constitutes an abuse of trial court discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…payment of attorney’s fees “after considering the financial resources of both parties.” It is not enough for a party to demonstrate the adverse party’s ability to pay; the party seeking payment of fees must also show a need. See Carlson v. Carlson, 719 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Firestone v. Firestone, 704 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Worthington v. Harty, 677 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court record supports a finding that the former husband has the ability to pay the attorney’s fe…
-
Bauchman v. Berta Bauchman, 253 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ust show some need; it is not enough to simply show that the adverse party's ability to pay the fees is greater than the party seeking relief or that an award is based on the relative financial strain of paying attorney's fees." Carlson v. Carlson , 719 So. 2d 936, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ; accord Zahringer v. Zahringer , 813 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). " 'Need' is 'the necessity for some financial assistance to engage an attorney and pay attorney fees.' " Von Baillou , 959 So. 2d at 823 (quoting Sat…
-
Bohner v. Bohner, 997 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…rgues, disparity in income alone is insufficient to warrant an award of attorney’s fees; rather, the party seeking relief must establish her need for the fee award. Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Carlson v. Carlson, 719 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Regardless, the trial court did not make any factual findings concerning the former wife’s need and did not state any reason why the former husband should be responsible for her attorney’s fees. For these reasons, we reverse th…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Martin v. Putnam Cnty. Blood Bank, Inc., 709 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Singletary v. Mickey Virden, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Susan R.S. Wertheim v. Wertheim, 711 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)