RACHAEL FULLER, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL FULLER, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's decision denying attorney's fees to a former wife, finding that the trial court erred in not awarding fees despite the former husband's income and the wife's demonstrated need.
Yes, the trial court erred in not awarding attorney's fees to the former wife. The court concluded that based on the equitable distribution, relative financial resources, and significant income disparity, the former husband had the ability to pay.
[1] Need and ability to pay are primary considerations in determining entitlement to attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding.
[2] A trial court errs in denying appellate attorney's fees to a former spouse who demonstrates need and a significant disparity in income with the former husband, especially…
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“Need and the ability to pay are the primary considerations in deciding entitlement to attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior appeal, the trial court held a hearing on the former wife's appellate attorney's fees. The parties agreed on income figures ($70,000…
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 Financial Resources Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REVIEW UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.400(C)
This matter makes its second appearance before this Court. Previously, we reversed the trial court’s order regarding child custody and imputation of income. Fuller v. Fuller, 13 So.3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). We also entered an order granting the former wife’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees conditioned upon a finding by the trial court of need and a commensurate ability to pay after appropriate consideration of the financial resources of both parties. On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing on the fee issue. At that hearing, the parties agreed that: (a) the former husband’s gross annual income is $70,000; (b) the former wife’s gross annual income is $20,000; and (c) the former wife reasonably expended $15,337.50 for the services of her appellate attorney. After considering the evidence, the trial court issued an order, without factual findings, concluding that while the former wife had demonstrated that she had a need for assistance with the payment of her attorney’s fees, she had not demonstrated that the former husband had the ability to pay those fees. We review this case pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c).
Need and the ability to pay are the primary considerations in deciding entitlement to attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding. Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997). The idea is to “ensure that both parties have similar access to competent legal counsel.” Id. at 699. After reviewing the equitable distribution of assets, the relative financial resources of the parties, as well as the significant disparity in income between the former husband and former wife, we conclude that the trial court erred in not awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the entry of an order awarding the former wife her appellate attorney’s fees. In the discretion of the trial court, a reasonable payment schedule may be established.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. Ubbels, 101 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…nancial resources of the parties. Kouzine v. Kouzine, 44 So. 3d 213, 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). In addition, the trial court must make findings of the requesting spouse’s need for such fees and the other spouse’s ability to pay them. Fuller v. Fuller, 29 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, the trial court failed to address the former wife’s need for an award of attorney’s fees. Moreover, the tri…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 13 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)