DEWEY EUGENE ARD, APPELLANT,
v.
PAMELA ANN ARD, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution scheme in a divorce case but reversed and remanded to correct a mathematical error in the equalization payment and to require proper factual findings regarding attorney's fees.
The trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets was affirmed, but the equalization payment amount was reversed due to mathematical error and the attorney's fees award was reversed for lack of required factual findings.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding must be supported by specific factual findings regarding the number of hours expended, the hourly rate charged, an…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the husband's total net assets were $17,825 and the wife's were $5,000. The trial court ordered an equalization payment …
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 Claim For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, J.
The former husband in this case, Dewey Eugene Ard (husband), appeals from the trial court’s Supplemental Final Judgment of Dissolution, asserting that the court erred in its findings with respect to the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets. We affirm the trial court’s scheme of equitable distribution on the merits, but remand for correction of a mathematical error. The husband’s total net assets were determined to be $17,825 and the total net assets of Pamela Ann Ard (wife) amounted to $5,000. The trial court required an equalization payment to the wife of $6,537.50. Because the correct amount was $6,412.50, we reverse on this point. We affirm the equitable distribution in all other respects. We also affirm that portion of the order requiring the husband to pay permanent periodic alimony to the wife.
The trial court ordered the husband to pay a part of the wife’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1500. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support an award of attorney’s fees to the wife, but the trial court made no factual findings with regard to the total number of hours expended by the wife’s attorney, the hourly rate, or the reasonableness of the fee. Thus, the award of attorney’s fees to the wife is reversed and remanded with instructions to make the required factual findings and reconsider in accordance with the principles enunciated in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). See Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
MINER and WEBSTER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…l court must make the requisite Rowe findings in the judgment to support the amount of the award. Here, the court made no findings as to the number of hours reasonably expended or an hourly rate and, therefore, reversal is required.2 See Ard v. Ard, 765 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Sund…
-
Saporito v. Saporito, 831 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…as to the number of hours spent and a reasonable hourly rate pursuant to Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990)) (citing Ard v. Ard, 765 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Sunday v. Sun…
-
Norman v. Norman, 939 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…995); Reich v. Reich, 652 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court did err, however, by failing to make the requisite findings as to the amount of fees. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. [*242] 1985);1 Ard v. Ard, 765 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). A dissolution order directing a party to pay the other party’s fees and costs, which recites simply that the total amounts “are reasonable time spent and hourly rates,” is insufficient under Rowe. See Keeley v. Keeley, 899 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)