HENRY D. MACARTY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MELODY D. MACARTY, 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 family law case, the trial court awarded the husband's ex-wife temporary support, moving expenses, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the temporary support award due to lack of transcript but reversed the attorney's fees award for lack of adequate written findings, and certified a question of great public importance regarding whether an attorney's fees order lacking required findings is facially erroneous.
The trial court's award of temporary support is affirmed because without a transcript, the appellant cannot demonstrate reversible error. The award of attorney's fees is reversed and remanded because the order lacks the required written findings regarding hours reasonably expended and the reasonableness of the hourly rate, which constitutes facial error reversible regardless of whether the appellate record includes a transcript.
[1] An appellate court cannot review a trial court's award of temporary support when the record lacks a transcript of the proceedings, preventing the appellant from demonstra…
[2] An award of attorney's fees is reversible on appeal if it is facially erroneous due to the absence of adequate findings justifying the amount awarded.
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“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”
Establishes the standard that absence of a transcript prevents meaningful appellate review of trial court factual findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a nonfinal order in a family law matter requiring Henry D. Macarty, Jr. (the Husband) to pay Melody D. Macarty (the Wife) $5,00…
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 Inadequate Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry D. Macarty, Jr. (the Husband), appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order awarding temporary support and attorney’s fees to Melody D. Macarty (the Wife). The trial court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $5000 for moving expenses, $1510 per month for temporary support, and $5000 for attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s award of temporary support because the absence of a transcript prevents the Husband from demonstrating reversible error. Because the portion of the order awarding attorney’s fees is facially erroneous, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings.
*435 The record before this court does not include a transcript of the hearing on the Wife’s motion for temporary relief. “Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Because we cannot provide a meaningful review of the trial court’s order awarding temporary relief to the Wife, we affirm that award.
However, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees to the Wife because the portion of the order awarding attorney’s fees is facially erroneous. “[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 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 Harris v. McKinney, 20 So.3d 400, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Peacock v. Ace, 24 So.3d 750, (Fla. 2d DCA 2009):
IS AN ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND V. ROWE, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), THAT LACKS THE REQUIRED FINDINGS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS REASONABLY EXPENDED AND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE HOURLY RATE CHARGED FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS ON ITS FACE, THUS REQUIRING REVERSAL, EVEN WHEN THE APPELLATE RECORD DOES NOT INCLUDE A TRANSCRIPT OR APPROVED STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW?
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with directions, and question certified.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Campbell v. Dina M. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…t set forth specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.” Hoffay v. Hoffay, 555 So. 2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[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.” (quoting Esaw v. Esaw, 965…
-
Powell v. Selene Powell, 55 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985); see also Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“ ‘[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.’ ” (quoting Esaw v. Esaw,…
-
Ortiz v. Ortiz, 227 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…any specific findings in the final judgment supporting the award, compels reversal. Therefore, on remand, the trial judge should make the required findings, or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing, (citation omitted)); Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[A]n award of attorney’s fees without adequate findings justifying- the amount of thé award is reversible even where the appellant has provided an inadequate record of the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, we remand for…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Markovich v. Bridgette Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Peacock v. Myron L. ACE & M.L. Ace, Inc., 24 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)