JEANNETTE CARYI N/K/A JEANNETTE COLADO, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN M. CARYI, 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.
A former wife appeals an award of attorney's fees and costs against her in post-dissolution proceedings. The trial court found her conduct during litigation was vexatious and unnecessary, but the appellate court reversed, finding no evidence to support the fee award.
The court reversed the award of attorney's fees and costs, concluding there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the former wife engaged in unnecessary or vexatious litigation.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] An award of attorney's fees must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 fee award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence”
Establishes the standard of review and evidentiary requirement for attorney's fee awards in dissolution proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeannette Caryi appealed a trial court's assessment of $16,965 in attorney's fees and $1,295 in costs against her in favor of her former husband, Stev…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
The former wife, Jeannette Caryi, n/k/a Jeannette Colado, appeals an award of attorney’s fees to her former husband, Steven M. Caryi, arising from post-dissolution proceedings. The trial court assessed attorney’s fees of $16,965, and costs of $1,295, against the former wife, finding that the former wife’s actions during the post-dissolution litigation were “vexatious, unnecessary and infectious (sic).” We reverse.
An award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding is reviewed for the abuse of discretion. Joachim v. Joachim, 942 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). However, the fee award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Faircloth v. Bliss, 917 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
While the issue regarding the parties’ financial resources is the primary factor to be considered when awarding fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes *962(2010), a trial court may consider other relevant factors such as
the scope and history of the litigation; the duration of the litigation; the merits of the respective positions; whether the litigation is brought or maintained primarily to harass (or whether a defense is raised mainly to frustrate or stall); and the existence and course of prior or pending litigation....
... [A] court may consider all the circumstances surrounding the suit in awarding fees under section 61.16. Moreover, in situations where a court finds that an action is frivolous or spurious or was brought primarily to harass the adverse party, ... the trial court has the discretion to deny a request for attorney’s fees to the party bringing the suit.
Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697, 700-01 (Fla.1997). Rosen has been interpreted as authorizing an award of attorney’s fees against a spouse for “over-litigation,” Zanone v. Clause, 848 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), persisting in litigation when there is “no reasonable prospect of success,” Diaz v. Diaz, 727 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed on other grounds, 826 So.2d 229 (Fla.2002), or where the party has engaged in “vexatious and frivolous litigation,” Taylor v. Taylor, 734 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See Dake v. Kirkley, 767 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (finding attorney’s fees recoverable under Ro-sen for improper conduct that causes extensive litigation).
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and conclude that there is no evidence that the former wife engaged in unnecessary or vexatious litigation. To the contrary, it appears that the former husband worked diligently to make a “mountain out of a molehill,” expending time and effort that was grossly disproportionate to the issues and amounts in dispute.
Given the lack of any evidence to support the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the former husband, we reverse the judgment.
REVERSED.
EVANDER and COHEN, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dybalski v. Dybalski, 108 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…his withdrawal of the motion. There is also no evidence that the petitions were filed for purposes of harassment. Given the lack of any evidence to support the award of attorney’s fees and costs to wife, we reverse the judgment. See Caryi v. Caryi, 83 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Estrella O. Ernfridsson v. Ward (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…t a rejection of her claim for additional attorney’s fees. The trial court denied her motion. This appeal followed. ---PAGE 3--- “An award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding is reviewed for [an] abuse of discretion.” Caryi v. Caryi, 83 So. 3d 960, 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “While the issue regarding the parties’ financial resources is the primary factor to be considered when awarding fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes . . . , a trial court may consider other relevant factors such…
-
la Rosa v. la Rosa, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2706 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Diosdado C. Diaz and Dennis Haber, Esq. v. Rina Cohan Diaz & Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 727 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Diosdado Diaz and Dennis Haber, Esq. v. Rina Cohan Diaz & Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 826 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2002)
- Faircloth v. Bliss, 917 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Zanone v. Clause, 848 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 734 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dake v. Kirkley, 767 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Joachim v. Joachim, 942 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)