TIMOTHY MATLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA MATLACK, 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 reversed an award of attorney's fees to the wife because the husband was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard on the fee request, violating due process.
A trial court must provide the opposing party with notice and an opportunity to be heard before awarding attorney's fees, and must make findings regarding entitlement, particularly when the fee-paying party is in a financially inferior position.
[1] A trial court must provide the opposing party with notice and an opportunity to be heard before awarding attorney's fees in a family law case, and must make findings rega…
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 family law case, the wife requested attorney's fees for the first time at the final judgment hearing based on the husband's excessive litigation.…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the award of attorney’s fees to the wife. Prior to the final judgment hearing the wife had not requested attorney’s fees in her pleading or by motion. At the final hearing she requested fees based upon the husband’s excessive litigation. The court stated that it would determine the issue separately and requested the parties submit their requests in writing. Apparently, the wife’s attorney wrote the court a letter requesting fees, but the letter was not received by the husband’s counsel. The final judgment was entered together with an order granting entitlement with amount to be determined later. Despite the husband’s protest that he had not been given notice or an opportunity to respond to the request, a successor judge denied relief and awarded the wife $8,195 in attorney’s fees.
The husband was entitled to an opportunity to challenge the wife’s request for attorney’s fees at a hearing. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hilson v. Hilson, 127 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). This is a basic element of due process. In addition, the trial court was required to make findings regarding the wife’s entitlement to fees, particularly in this type of case where the wife is in a financially superior position to the husband who has been ordered to pay her fees. See Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baime v. Baime, 850 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded for a hearing on the wife’s request for attorney’s fees.
STONE, WARNER, JJ., and BRYAN, BEN L., JR., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…(Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Chhouri v. Chhouri, 2 So. 3d 987, 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). “Absent a stipulation, this must be determined at an evi-dentiary hearing.” Jones, 671 So. 2d at 855. This is a basic element of due process. Matlack v. Matlack, 893 So. 2d 656, 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court, in the order under review, should not have determined the amount of the fee award when the trial court expressly provided in its prior order that it would set the matter for a hearing if it determine…
Authorities Cited
- McILVEEN v. McILVEEN, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Baime v. Baime, 850 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Ottis Tal Hilson v. Hilson, 127 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)