WILLIAM KEITH CAMPBELL, APPELLANT,
v.
DINA M. CAMPBELL, 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.
William Keith Campbell appeals a default final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all respects except the attorney's fees award, which was reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide specific findings justifying the fee amount.
The court affirmed the final judgment denying the motion for rehearing and/or to set aside the clerk's default, but reversed the attorney's fees award and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court failed to make specific findings concerning the hourly rate, number of hours expended, and appropriateness of any reduction or enhancement factors.
[1] An award of attorney's fees is reversible error when the trial court fails to make specific findings of fact to support the amount awarded.
[2] The absence of specific findings of fact in an order awarding attorney's fees is an error apparent on the face of the order, reviewable on appeal even without a transcrip…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The law is "well established that the trial court must set forth specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors."”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for trial courts to provide detailed findings when awarding attorney's fees in family law cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage action with minor children, the husband failed to timely respond, resulting in entry of a clerk's default. A default fina…
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 Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, William Keith Campbell (Husband), appeals a final order denying his verified motion for rehearing and/or to set aside the clerk’s default after the court’s entry of a default final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action with minor children. We affirm the final judgment in all respects, except that portion that awards attorney’s fees to counsel for Ap-pellee, Dina M. Campbell (Wife).
A trial judge’s award of attorney’s fees and costs is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Kuczwanski v. Kuczwanski, 602 So.2d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The standard for awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution cases is the financial need of the requesting party and the financial ability of the other party to pay. Derrevere v. Derrevere, 899 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
In the instant case, the default final judgment granted attorney’s fees to the Wife, stating: “The Husband shall be responsible for the Wife’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to F.S. 61.16 as the Husband’s income and financial resources are far superior to the Wife’s and she has the need and he has the ability to pay same. The Wife’s total fees and costs incurred to date, and which the Husband shall be solely responsible are $4,200.00.”
The law is “well established that the trial court must 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 So.2d 1261, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)). The presence of competent substantial evidence to support the award does not obviate the need for such specific findings. Hoffay, 555 So.2d at 1310.
In determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, courts should consider the following factors:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the issues, and the legal skill required; (2) the likelihood that the representation will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the customary fee; (4) the result obtained; *1223(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyers; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
Schwartz v. Schwartz, 965 So.2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So.2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).
Where there is nothing in the trial court’s order that allows the appellate court to discern whether any of the above factors were considered in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, a fee award simply taking the amount charged by the attorney and determining it to be reasonable is improper and an abuse of discretion. See id. at 834; see also Harris 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 proceedings.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded for Further Proceedings.
TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…trial court reversibly erred [*282] in awarding the Former Wife temporary appellate attorney’s fees without conducting a hearing on the motion. A trial court’s award ' of attorney’s fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees. Jones v. Jones, 671 So. 2d 852, 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The…
-
Ortiz v. Ortiz, 227 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ons imposed by the client or circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyers; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221, 1222-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 965 So. 2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “Where there is nothing in the trial court’s order that allows the appellate court to discern whether any of the above factors were considered in determi…
-
Dieter Nagl v. Monika Navarro, 187 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…mount charged by the attorney and determining it to be reasonable is improper and an abuse of discretion.’ ” Doukas v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 92 So. 3d 303, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). We are unable to determine from the final judgments whether the trial court made the appropriate findings as to the reasonableness of the hours expended and the hourly rate. Likewise, the trial court failed to make a -fi…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Derrevere v. Gena Derrevere, 899 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Hoffay v. Hoffay, 555 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- MacArty v. MacArty, 29 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 965 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Markovich v. Bridgette Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Kuczwanski v. Kuczwanski, 602 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)