KATHERINE JOHANNA JOHNSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
IAN JOHNSTON, 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 post-dissolution family law case, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial of the former wife's motion for attorney's fees. The court found that the trial judge properly considered prior Canadian litigation and delays caused by the mother's conduct in refusing to comply with court orders and relocating with the children.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part the attorney's fees motion. The court properly considered the prior Canadian litigation as 'prior litigation' under applicable law and had adequate evidence to support its decision, including expert testimony.
[1] A trial court may consider prior litigation between parties when determining attorney's fees in a post-dissolution action.
[2] A trial court has adequate evidence to support its ruling if it considers a detailed report from an expert.
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“The Canadian dissolution action amounted to "prior litigation" between the parties that the trial court properly considered on the issue of attorney's fees under Rosen v. Rosen”
Establishes that the trial court properly relied on prior Canadian litigation when deciding the attorney's fees issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in Canada, where the father was awarded supervised visitation. The mother left Canada for South Africa without following cou…
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
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying in part the former wife’s motion for attorney’s fees in this post-dissolution action that concerned visitation and child support. The Canadian dissolution action amounted to “prior litigation” between the parties that the trial court properly considered on the issue of attorney’s fees under Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997). The court had adequate evidence before it to support its ruling, including the detailed report of Dr. Reed. At the time the wife left Canada for South Africa, there was an order from the Canadian court allowing the father supervised visitation. Over ten years passed from the time the former wife left Canada until the time the former husband commenced the underlying action, after discovering the former wife and his children in Florida. The trial judge was concerned about the delays in this case caused by the former wife’s actions. She observed that “justice delayed [was] justice denied” and noted that parties to dissolution actions must resolve their disputes through the court system rather than resorting to self help.1 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision on attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . At the May 4, 1999 hearing the trial judge voiced the following concerns:
What is very distressing is the ease at which mom testified that she was very aware of the Canadian court orders and she didn’t obey some of it. The way mom testified about court orders and her obeying or disobeying them is of very great concern.
If every parent involved within the court system made a determination that they were above the law and disappeared with the children when they felt like disappearing with the children we would have chaos.... It didn’t matter what this court ordered at this point regarding contact [of the father] with the children, because the children, according to Dr. Reed, were beyond the point that this court could order them to do anything. And I respect dad for recognizing that dilemma and in choosing to dismiss at this point. So this passage of time has been of benefit to mom, but yet the life she has chosen to have these children live has been to their detriment.