ROBERT J. ROGOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLENE B. ROGOFF, 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 consolidated appeal from a dissolution of marriage case, the court reversed a contempt finding against the former husband for making unilateral set-offs against marital property transfer obligations, holding the settlement agreement was not sufficiently clear to support a willful violation finding. The court affirmed the denial of the former wife's attorney's fees motion for failure to prove reasonableness of fees.
The contempt order is reversed because the property settlement agreement is not sufficiently clear and precise to establish that the husband's set-off actions constituted a willful and wanton violation. The denial of attorney's fees is affirmed because the former wife failed to meet her burden of proving the reasonableness of time expended and the reasonable market rate for comparable counsel.
[1] A contempt order is improper when a marital settlement agreement is not sufficiently clear and precise to support a finding of willful and wanton violation of an express…
[2] A party seeking attorney's fees must meet the burden of proving the reasonableness of time expended and the reasonable market rate for legal services.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, is not so clear and precise as to support a finding that former husband's actions in making the set-offs constituted a willful and wanton violation of an express term of the agreement”
Establishes the legal standard for contempt based on property settlement agreements and explains why the contempt order must be reversed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Rogoff and Charlene Rogoff were former spouses subject to a marital property settlement agreement incorporated into their final judgment of dis…
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 Motion For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
In this consolidated appeal, former husband, Robert Rogoff, appeals an order finding him in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a purge amount of $38,-575 after he unilaterally made set-offs against the money he was to transfer to the former wife pursuant to their marital property settlement agreement. We reverse the contempt order because the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, is not so clear and precise as to support a finding that former husband’s actions in making the set-offs constituted a willful and wanton violation of an express term of the agreement. See Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Implicit in the trial court’s order, however, is the finding that the husband has failed to fully comply with the settlement agreement and that some amount is still owed to the wife. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a judgment, or other order, in whatever amount the trial court determines to be due, enforcing the property settlement agreement. The trial court, in its discretion, may take additional evidence or enter the judgment on the basis of the present record.
Former wife, Charlene Rogoff, appeals the order denying her motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm because former wife did not meet her burden to prove the reasonableness of the time expended on the case and the reasonable market rate for lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation in the community for eases of this nature. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.1985).
REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED.
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)