THEODORE A. AVELLONE, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN E. AVELLONE N/K/A SUSAN E. RICE, 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 and remanded a trial court's order awarding appellate attorney's fees because the trial court failed to explain why it deducted the appellee's $4,000 retainer from the $10,000 fee award, potentially penalizing the appellee for paying the retainer upfront.
A trial court's order awarding appellate attorney's fees must be remanded when it fails to explain the basis for deducting a party's retainer payment from the total fee award.
[1] A trial court's order awarding appellate attorney's fees must include an explanation for any deductions from the calculated fee award to permit meaningful appellate revie…
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 prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the former husband's motion for contempt and to enforce the Marital Settlement Agree…
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 Motion For Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, the former wife, seeks review of the trial court’s Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c). In Avellone v. Avellone, 951 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), we affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion for contempt and to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement filed by Appellant, the former husband. In accordance with our order granting Ap-pellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees, the trial court held a hearing to determine the amount. In its order, the trial court found that fifty hours was a reasonable amount of time to spend representing Appellee on appeal and that $200 per hour was a reasonable hourly fee, for a total reasonable fee of $10,000. The trial court then subtracted the $4,000 retainer paid by Appellee from the $10,000 and ordered that Appellant pay the sum of $6,000 to Appellee’s attorney. Appellee moved for clarification and argued that the trial court’s order penalized her for paying the retainer. The trial court denied the motion without explanation. This review followed.
Because we are unable to discern from the face of the trial court’s order why it deducted the $4,000 retainer and ordered that Appellant only pay $6,000, we REVERSE the order and REMAND for further proceedings.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, . JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avellone v. Avellone, 973 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…The former wife sought review of the order. Because we were unable to [*1172] discern from the face of the trial court’s order why it deducted the $4,000 retainer, we reversed the order and remanded for further proceedings. See Avellane v. Avellone, 960 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court found that the former wife had the ability to pay the $4,000 retainer, notwithstanding the fact that she was the prevailing party. The former wife has now sought review of this order. The parties’ Ma…
Authorities Cited
- Avellone v. Avellone, 951 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)