JAMES A. BARBER, APPELLANT,
v.
MAUREEN G. GOODWIN F/K/A MAUREEN G. BARBER, 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.
Barber appealed a final order modifying child support and awarding attorney's fees to his former wife Goodwin. The court affirmed the child support modification but reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make necessary findings regarding Goodwin's need for fees and Barber's ability to pay them.
The trial court's determination regarding the modification of child support was affirmed as sufficiently supported. However, the award of attorney's fees was reversed and remanded because the order lacked findings establishing Goodwin's need for fees, Barber's ability to pay, and the basis for the specific amount awarded.
[1] A trial court must make findings regarding a party's ability to pay and the other party's need for attorney's fees in dissolution proceedings.
[2] A trial court's order awarding attorney's fees must include findings that establish the basis for entitlement 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“[A] trial court cannot decide the issue of attorney's fees without findings as to one spouse's ability to pay fees and the other spouse's need to have fees paid.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for findings in attorney's fees awards in family law cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames A. Barber and Maureen G. Goodwin were former spouses involved in a family law matter. The trial court entered a final order that both modified c…
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
CANADY, Judge.
James A. Barber appeals a final order modifying child support and awarding attorney’s fees to Maureen G. Goodwin, his former wife. Barber raises two issues. First, he argues that the order does not contain sufficient findings to support the trial court’s determination concerning the modification of child support. On this issue, we conclude that Barber’s argument is without merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s determination. Second, Barber argues that the order does not contain sufficient findings to support the award of attorney’s fees to Goodwin. On this issue, we conclude that reversal of the order is required.
The portion of the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees simply states that Barber “shall contribute to Goodwin’s attorney’s fees and costs by paying $750 to counsel for Goodwin.” The order contains no findings establishing the basis for the award of fees.
The trial court’s failure to set forth such findings in its order was error. “[A] trial court cannot decide the issue of attorney’s fees without findings as to one spouse’s ability to pay fees and the other spouse’s need to have fees paid.” Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Schlafke v. Schlafke, 755 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (“The court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter, including enforcement and modification proceedings and appeals.”).
As the supreme court has explained in Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997), a trial court’s determination regarding entitlement to fees under section 61.16(1) may also be based on findings concerning “any factor necessary to provide justice and ensure equity between the parties.” Once the trial court has determined that there is an entitlement to fees, the court must set forth findings regarding the factors that justify the specific amount awarded. See Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Here, the trial court’s order has no findings establishing the basis for the entitlement to fees and no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees. Accordingly, we reverse the award of fees and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order setting forth the necessary findings with respect to the entitlement to fees, as well as the necessary findings regarding the determination of the amount awarded.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…d.” Rogers, 12 So. 3d at 292 (emphasis added); see also Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (noting that “an award of attorney’s fees without adequate findings justifying the amount of the award is reversible”); Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Further, “while the trial court has discretion to allow payment of an award of attorney’s fees over time, it must set forth some factual basis for imposing [*772] the specific payment plan selected.” Rogers, 12 So. 3d at 292…
-
Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…s.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997). If the trial court determines that there is an entitlement to attorney’s fees, it must also set forth findings regarding the factors that justify the specific amount awarded. See Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Moreover, while the trial court has discretion to allow payment of an award of attorney’s fees over time, it must set forth some factual basis for imposing the sp…
-
Marcia L. Arena v. John F. Arena, 103 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…judgment — supporting its determination of entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees and the factors that justify the specific amount awarded. See Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So. 3d 288, 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Balko, 957 So. 2d at 16; Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Once the trial court has determined that there is an entitlement to fees, the court must set forth findings regarding the factors that justify the specific amount awarded.”); Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Shields v. Lissi Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Schlafke v. Schlafke, 755 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)