JEAN MARKOVICH, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIDGETTE MARKOVICH, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the former wife but affirmed the award of bridge-the-gap alimony. The reversal was based on the trial court's failure to include specific written findings regarding the hours worked, hourly rate, and reasonableness of the attorney's fees.
The court reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to include specific written findings regarding hours worked, hourly rate, and reasonableness. The court affirmed the alimony award in all other respects, finding that without a transcript, the former husband could not overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court's determinations.
[1] An award of attorney's fees must be supported by specific written findings detailing the hours worked and the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged.
[2] In the absence of a transcript of proceedings, an appellant cannot overcome the presumption of correctness of a trial court's determinations regarding alimony and equitab…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Absent specific written findings regarding the basis for determination of the amount awarded, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
The court's standard for reversal of the attorney's fees award due to lack of specific findings regarding hours, rate, and reasonableness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean Markovich, the former husband, appealed the trial court's final order of dissolution of marriage. The trial court awarded bridge-the-gap alimony …
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 Bridge-The-Gap Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jean Markovich, the former husband, challenges the trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court awarded bridge-the-gap alimony and attorney fees to the former wife, Bridgette Markovich. We reverse the award of attorney’s fees but affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects.
With regard to the award of attorney’s fees, the trial court’s final judgment contains no indication of the hours worked by the former wife’s attorney or the hourly rate accompanied by the trial court’s determination of the reasonableness of the hours worked and the rate charged. The former husband’s motion for rehearing in which he raised this error was denied. Absent specific written findings regarding the basis for determination of the amount awarded, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
The former husband also argues that the alimony award was not supported by specific findings and that the trial court failed to make findings with regard to the valuation of the couple’s marital assets and debts. The former husband has provided no transcript of the proceedings. In the absence of a transcript, the former husband cannot overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s determinations. See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that the lack of findings supporting an alimony award and equitable distribution of marital property was not reversible error where the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing or an acceptable substitute).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of dissolution of marriage solely with respect to the award of attorney’s fees and remand for a new hearing so that the trial court may set forth specific findings as to the reasonableness of the hours expended and the hourly rate, as required by Rowe. The trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. Dina M. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ris v. McKinney, 20 So. 3d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Absent specific written findings regarding the basis for determination of the amount awarded, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings.”) (quoting Markovich v. Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). As the attorney’s fee award in the instant case lacks specific findings that would form the basis for affirming such an award, this Court hereby must also reverse and remand on the issue of attorney’s fees for further proce…
-
MacArty v. MacArty, 29 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…saw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make the necessary written findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). See Markovich v. Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We certify the following question to be one of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), as this court did in…
-
Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…pended and the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged. The Father is correct that in order to award attorney’s fees, a trial court must make such findings and that the court’s order here does not include such findings. See Markovich v. Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Absent specific written findings regarding the basis for determination of the amount awarded, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings.”). We note that the record before us does not include a transcri…1 / 2
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)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)