DMYTRO VORONIN, APPELLANT,
v.
OLENA VORONINA, 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 held that an order awarding attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding must contain specific findings regarding the hourly rate and number of hours reasonably expended.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding must contain specific findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours expen…
[2] A trial court's failure to make specific findings required for an attorney's fee award renders the order fundamentally erroneous on its face, even if the issue was not pr…
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 intelligenceThe former husband appealed an order awarding attorney's fees to the former wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court's order did …
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 Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, CHARLES T„ Associate Judge.
Dmytro Voronin, the former husband, appeals an order awarding Olena Voroni-na, the former wife, attorney’s fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The former husband raises three issues, two of which we reject without further comment. For his third issue, the former husband argues that the trial court’s order is flawed by the absence of findings concerning the basis for the amount of the attorney’s fee award. On this point, we accept the former husband’s argument.
The trial court’s written order awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife found that “a fair contribution amount due from [the former husband] to [the former wife] in attorney’s fees is $10,-000[.]00.” The trial court found that the former husband “shall take one-half of that amount as a credit” based on $5000 already paid to the former wife. The trial court ordered the former husband to pay an additional $5000 towards the former wife’s attorney’s fees. The order did not contain specific findings as to the reasonable hourly rate or the reasonable number of hours expended. (At the hearing on the former wife’s motion, the court had stated that $150 was a reasonable hourly rate but made no finding concerning the reasonable amount of time expended.)
“[I]n making an attorney’s fee award in a dissolution proceeding, the trial court must determine the proper amount of fees by considering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended in the case, and setting forth specific findings as to these factors as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).” Beck v. Beck, 852 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The former husband correctly argues that the trial court’s order should be reversed because it does not contain the findings required by Rowe. Even though the former husband did not preserve the issue for appeal by raising it below, an order which fails to set forth the specific findings required by Rowe is fundamentally erroneous on its face. See, e.g., Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, 928 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeoumers’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the findings required by Rowe to support the award of attorney’s fees.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Justine Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…A]n award of attorney’s fees without adequate findings justifying the amount of the award is reversible even where the appellant has provided an inadequate record of the trial court proceedings.” Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265; accord Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“[A]n order which fails to set forth the specific findings required by Rowe is fundamentally erroneous on its face.”). Contrary to the former wife’s assertion, the trial court did comply with Rowe as it made specific findin…
-
Misael Gomez Lizardi and Tanya Torres Gomez v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 322 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…not control the disposition of this case. Had the trial court in this case made specific findings as to why it reduced the requested number of hours or hourly rate, the order would have likely satisfied Rowe's requirements. See Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (explaining that pursuant to Rowe, "the trial court must determine the proper amount of fees by considering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended in the case, and setting forth specific findings as to thes…
-
R.M.A. v. J.A.S., 269 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…eyards, 891 So. 2d 1063, 1065 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ) ). Reversal is required unless the trial court makes specific written findings as to these Rowe factors. See, e.g., Tullos v. Tullos, 37 So. 3d 355, 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck, 852 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin, 880 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Beck v. Sydney Beck, 852 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)