DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
J.B., MOTHER OF P.C., A CHILD, 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 Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees to the mother in a dependency case where the trial court found the Department of Children and Family Services in contempt for failing to timely complete a home study, but subsequently reversed the contempt finding while still awarding fees. The court held that the trial court failed to cite any legal basis for the fee award, which is required under Florida law.
The court reversed the fee award because the trial court failed to state any legal basis for awarding attorney's fees. Attorney's fees may only be awarded when expressly provided by statute, rule, or contract, or through specific exceptions such as sanctions under section 57.105, bad faith conduct, civil contempt with proper procedure, or conditioning upon continuance.
[1] A court may generally award attorney's fees only when expressly provided for by statute, rule, or contract.
[2] A court may award attorney's fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct upon making appropriate findings.
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“Generally, a court may only award attorney's fees when such fees are "expressly provided for by statute, rule, or contract."”
Establishes the fundamental rule requiring a legal basis for attorney's fee awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring dependency proceedings, the court ordered the mother to begin unsupervised visitation with her child subject to a positive home study. Five wee…
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 Sanctions For Bad Faith Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
During the course of dependency proceedings below, the court ordered the mother to begin unsupervised visitation with the child “subject to positive home study on the mother.” Five weeks later, the mother’s attorney filed a petition for order to show cause why the Department of Children and Family Services (“Department”) should not be held in contempt for failing to complete a home study on the mother. The petition did not seek attorney’s fees. At a hearing on the petition, the court found the Department in contempt and invited the mother’s attorney to file a motion for attorney fees. The mother’s attorney subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and attached an affidavit relating to the amount of fees expended. After a short hearing, the court reversed its previous finding of contempt, but awarded attorney’s fees consistent with the affidavit.
We are certainly sympathetic to the court’s attempt to send a much-needed message to the Department. The Department’s failure to conduct a timely home study violated a court order, necessitated expending scarce judicial resources, and most importantly, unnecessarily delayed reunification between mother and child. However, we must reverse the fee order because the court failed to state a legal basis for awarding attorney’s fees. Generally, a court may only award attorney’s fees when such fees are “expressly provided for by statute, rule, or contract.” Hubbel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 758 So. 2d 94, 97 (Fla.2000). Neither the mother nor the lower court cited any legal authority for awarding fees.
We note that attorney’s fees may be awarded as a sanction under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, if the court makes appropriate findings. See, e.g., Dep’t of Children and Family Services v. Carter, 851 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A court may impose attorneys fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct upon making appropriate findings. See, e.g., Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla.1998). A court may award attorney’s fees as a sanction for civil contempt as long as proper procedure is followed. See Dep’t of Children and Families v. D.T., 808 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Lamb v. Fowler, 574 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A court may also award attorney’s fees conditioned upon the granting of a continuance. See Dep’t of Children and Families v. M.G., 838 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We caution, however, that our holding in M.G. should not be construed as a broad grant of authority to award attorney’s fees as a sanction in contexts other than those outlined above.
We decline to address the Department’s arguments regarding the amount of fees as they were not properly preserved. We reject the Department’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction because the fee order was entered after the case was closed. In Tobkin v. State, 777 So. 2d 1160, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the court noted that closing a case does not prevent the court from determining “ancillary matters involved in the case such as outstanding and unresolved motions for attorney’s fees and costs, and similar issues.” Clearly, the court in this case orally awarded fees prior to closing the case and therefore retained jurisdiction to enter a written order consistent with its previous oral pronouncement.
Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the court to state a legal basis for the award, if any. See North County Co. v. Bologna, 816 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitby v. Infinity Radio, Inc., 961 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…n was entered. Only issues regarding Whitby’s ability to pay and to whom, ancillary matters, remained after final judgment. As a result, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its prior ruling. See also Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. J.B., 898 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (jurisdiction found for lower court to enter a written order awarding attorney’s fees after the case was closed because the lower court orally awarded fees prior to closing the case, thus retaining jurisdiction to enter a wr…
-
In the Interest of K.L., P.L. v. M.L., 932 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s. While we are not unsympathetic to the trial judge’s frustration with the Department’s delay in conducting a home study, it was error for the trial judge to order the fee payment absent a legal basis. See Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. J.B., 898 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to strike the fee award. Reversed and remanded with directions. FULMER, C.J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.…
-
Simon v. Waters, 253 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. There are certain extraordinary circumstances, not present here, such as bad faith conduct or civil contempt, that deviate from this general rule as a sanction. See, e.g., Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. J.B. , 898 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Bitterman v. Bitterman , 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998) ). Appellee has not appealed the order vacating the Special Warranty Deed. The trial court was referring to a requirement of rescission. See Royal v. Parado…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bitterman v. Anette Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998)
- Tobkin v. State, 777 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Hubbel v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 758 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2000)
- Lamb v. Fowler, 574 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. M.G., 838 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- The N. Cnty. Co., Inc. v. Bologna, 816 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Carter, 851 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. D.T. and T.T., 808 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)