PATRICIA YGLESIAS TILCHIN, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS MEYERS TILCHIN, 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 reversed and remanded an attorney's fees order because the underlying dissolution judgment was previously reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to reconsider the fees award once the final judgment is re-entered.
An attorney's fees award must be reconsidered on remand when the underlying final judgment of dissolution is itself reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
[1] Attorney's fees awards in dissolution cases must be reconsidered when the underlying judgment is remanded for modification of equitable distribution or alimony, as such m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Tilchin challenged an attorney's fees order entered after a final judgment of dissolution. The final judgment had previously been reversed an…
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 Appeal Of Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
Patricia Tilchin, the Former Wife, challenges the order on attorney’s fees entered after the final judgment of dissolution. Because the final judgment of dissolution was previously reversed and remanded for reconsideration, see Tilchin v. Tilchin, 51 So.3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), we reverse and remand the order on attorney’s fees so that the trial court can reconsider the award of attorney’s fees once the final judgment of dissolution is entered.
In providing the trial court with instructions on the remand of the final judgment of dissolution, this court specifically held that equitable distribution and alimony might be impacted. Id. at 598 (“If the trial court again enters an unequal distribution, it must make adequate and consistent findings of fact justifying the unequal distribution. In the event that the trial court is not able to articulate a valid reason for an unequal distribution, on remand the court is authorized to fashion a new equitable distribution plan and alimony award to achieve an appropriate result articulating supporting findings of fact based on the evidence presented at and in conjunction with the final hearing.”). Because the actions taken by the trial court on remand from our previous opinion could impact the figures used to calculate the parties’ respective needs or abilities to pay, it is appropriate for the trial court to also reconsider the entitlement to attorney’s fees on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crick v. Robbin Vickery Crick, 78 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…distribution and alimony will likely “impact the figures used to calculate the parties’ respective needs or abilities to pay, it is appropriate for the trial court to also reconsider the entitlement to attorney’s fees on remand.” Tilchin v. Tilchin, 65 So. 3d 1207, 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Mills v. Mills, 62 So. 3d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“Because recalculation of the equitable distribution and alimony awards will result in a change in the parties’ overall financial picture, the trial court must…
-
Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ibution and alimony will be significantly impacted by this appeal, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can reconsider the award of attorney’s fees once a new final judgment [*39] of dissolution is entered on remand. See Tilchin v. Tilchin, 65 So. 3d 1207, 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). VI. Cross-Appeal We find no reversible error in the trial court’s determination that the mutual fund accounts at issue in the cross-appeal were non-marital. See Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389, 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (…
Authorities Cited
- Tilchin v. Tilchin, 51 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)