STEPHEN R. SONSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA TERESA SONSON, ETC., 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 former husband appeals from an order awarding attorney's fees to the former wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award, finding competent substantial evidence that the former husband engaged in vexatious litigation and had superior financial ability to pay the fees.
The trial court properly ratified the master's findings regarding vexatious litigation as supported by competent substantial evidence. The court properly rejected the master's unsupported recommendation to reduce the fee award by fifty percent, as the master provided no legal basis for the reduction despite finding the fees reasonable and the former wife entitled to recovery. The former husband failed to preserve for review his claim regarding unreasonable delay.
[1] A trial court may not reject a master's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous.
[2] A trial court is not bound by a master's recommendation that lacks a legal basis, even if the master made specific findings entitling a party to fees.
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“It has long been the law in Florida that a trial judge may not reject a master's findings of fact unless the court concludes that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for a master's findings of fact and supports the trial court's authority to ratify the master's vexatious litigation finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband and former wife were involved in a post-dissolution enforcement action. The trial court, relying on a general master's findings, de…
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 Master'S Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Former husband appeals from a final order awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife in a post-dissolution enforcement action. We affirm.
The trial court properly ratified the general master’s finding that the former husband was vexatiously litigious, as there is competent substantial evidence to support the finding. See Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1953) (“It has long been the law in Florida that a trial judge may not reject a master’s findings of fact unless the court concludes that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous.”).
Furthermore, the trial court properly rejected the master’s recommendation to reduce the fee award by fifty percent. The master cited no legal basis for the reduction, despite having made specific findings that the former wife was entitled to a fee award1 and that her claimed fees were reasonable. See Schafroth v. Schafroth, 610 So .2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that “the master’s determination—unlike a finding of fact on disputed evidence—did not bind the trial court, which was, to the contrary, required to set it aside.”); see also Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Finally, the former husband has failed to preserve for review his claim that there was an unreasonable delay between the initial hearing and entry of the final order. See Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young and Young Investments, Inc., 714 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Reis v. Reis, 739 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly, the order is
AFFIRMED.
. The master found that the former husband has a superior financial ability to pay the former wife's fees and that the former husband alone was responsible for the unnecessary litigation. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1205 (Fla.1980) ("It is not necessary that one spouse be completely unable to pay attorney’s fees in order for the trial court to require the other spouse to pay these fees....”); Nash v. Nash, 624 So. 2d 370, 371-372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("Attorney’s fees should be paid by the party who has the superior financial ability to pay.”) (citations omitted); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that it is proper to award fees for "inequitable conduct which resulted in needless litigation and legal fees”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Yanks v. Amerifirst Bank, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young, 714 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Schafroth v. Schafroth, 610 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Reis v. Reis, 739 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1953)
- Nash v. Nash, 624 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Tamela Mounce v. Mounce, 459 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)