AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE (RULE 12.525)
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 Florida Supreme Court adopted a new Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525 that excludes the general civil procedure rule governing motions for costs and attorneys' fees from family law proceedings, recognizing that family law uses different standards for awarding such fees based on need and ability to pay rather than prevailing party considerations.
The Court adopted new Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525, which provides that Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 shall not apply in family law proceedings, because family law uses different standards for awarding attorneys' fees and costs that are already governed by section 61.16, Florida Statutes.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, governing motions for costs and attorneys' fees, does not apply in proceedings governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedur…
[2] The Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure may provide exceptions to the general application of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
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“The method of taxation of attorneys' fees and costs in family law cases is quite different from that in civil litigation. Whereas the former is based on need and ability of the parties to pay, the latter is based on prevailing party considerations.”
Establishes the fundamental difference in fee-awarding standards between family law and civil litigation that justifies separate treatment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Family Law Rules Committee filed a petition proposing a new rule to clarify that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 does not apply in family la…
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 Florida Family Law Rules Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Family Law Rules Committee has filed an out-of-cycle petition proposing the creation of a new Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(e).
The committee proposes creating new rule 12.525, Motions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, which succinctly provides, “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 shall not apply in proceedings governed by these rules.” The proposal was published by the The Florida Bar and the Court in the March 1, 2004, and the October 1, 2004, editions of The Florida Bar News, respectively, and comments were invited. Three comments were filed, all in favor of the proposed new rule.
ANALYSIS
Currently, under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.020, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply in all family law matters except as otherwise provided in the family law rules. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, Motions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, provides:
Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The committee states it is proposing new rule 12.525 because rule 1.525 is ill-fitting to family law matters, and this ill fit may be causing the circuit courts and the district courts of appeal to apply or interpret the rule inconsistently in the context of family law proceedings. Compare Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (rejecting an argument in a family law matter that a reservation of jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs in a final judgment entitles a party to an automatic extension of the 30-day time period to file a motion seeking to tax attorneys’ fees), with Fisher v. John Carter & Associates, Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that in a civil case a reservation of jurisdiction in a final judgment extends the time for filing a motion for attorneys’ fees).
We agree that rule 1.525 should not apply in family law proceedings. The method of taxation of attorneys’ fees and costs in family law cases is quite different from that in civil litigation. Whereas the former is based on need and ability of the parties to pay, the latter is based on prevailing party considerations. Moreover, section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2004), already governs the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in family law cases. See also Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997) (noting that “[a]ny determination regarding an appropriate award of attorney’s fees in proceedings for dissolution of mar riage, support, or child custody begins with section 61.16, Florida Statutes”).
Because the application of rule 1.525 in family law cases could be creating confusion among the courts, and because there already is a well-established body of statutory and case law authority regarding the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in family law matters, we agree with the committee’s proposal. Accordingly, we hereby adopt new Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525 as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. In adopting this rule, we express no opinion as to its constitutionality. As all of the language is new, we forego the usual underlining and strike-through type format. The new rule shall become effective immediately.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. APPENDIX
RULE 12.525 MOTIONS FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 shall not apply in proceedings governed by these rules.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2006)…, subsequent to the adoption of rule 1.525, the Court adopted Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525, which states that rule 1.525 does not apply in family law proceedings. See Amendments to the Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2005). Rule 12.525 was adopted at the request of the Family Law Rules Committee because the Committee stated that “rule 1.525 is ill-fitting to family law matters.” Id. at 467. The Court accepted the argument that “the application of rule 1.525…
-
Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…s case, the Florida Supreme Court promulgated Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525, which states that rule 1.525 does not apply in family law matters such as this one. See Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2005).' Mrs. Nicoletti contends on rehearing that this new rule requires reversal. We disagree. The judgment that triggered Mrs. Nicoletti’s right to attorney’s fees was entered in August 2002. At that time, rule 1.525 controlled this action.…
-
Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…netheless granted the motion to strike due to appellant’s noncompliance with the 30-day provision in rule 1.525. Because rule 1.525 is inapplicable in family law proceedings, see Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2005), we vacate the order granting the motion to strike and remand the case for further proceedings. In appellant’s complaint for marital dissolution, filed in 2002, she sought, among other things, an award of attorney’s fees. The parties ult…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)