JONATHAN RAYMOND NEWMAN, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE LEE NEWMAN, WIFE, 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 affirmed the trial court's determination that the former wife was entitled to attorney's fees but reversed and remanded because the trial court awarded those fees without conducting a hearing or giving the former husband an opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rate and hours claimed.
A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and give the opposing party an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of attorney's fees before awarding them, absent a stipulation.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and afford the opposing party an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of attorney's fees before awarding them, ab…
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 intelligence“absent a stipulation, a party seeking attorney's fees must prove with evidence at an evidentiary hearing the reasonableness of the fee sought”
The court cited Giovanini v. Giovanini to establish the requirement for an evidentiary hearing on attorney's fees absent stipulation.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the former wife based on findings that the hourly rate and num…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises four issues on appeal, only one *662of which warrants reversal and remand. Although we reject Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in determining that Appellee, the former wife, was entitled to attorney’s fees, we agree that the trial court, which found that the hourly rate and number of hours claimed by Ap-pellee’s attorney were reasonable, erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving Appellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting in part that absent a stipulation, a party seeking attorney’s fees must prove with evidence at an evidentiary hearing the reasonableness of the fee sought); Duncan v. Duncan, 642 So.2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that the trial court erroneously awarded temporary attorney’s fees and costs without determining that the amounts sought were reasonable and without giving the appellant an opportunity to challenge their reasonableness); Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So.2d 357, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (noting that a trial court must give notice to a party against whom an attorney’s fee award will be made and afford an opportunity to review and rebut the reasonableness of any amount claimed).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.
LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wagner v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 143 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…of these costs and fees was an affidavit filed by the bank’s counsel prior to trial, but as all parties agreed below, Wagner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the amount of attorney’s fees and costs sought by the bank.1 See Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that trial court “erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving [a]ppellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed”). Therefore, there…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Prof'l Med. Grp., Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…D1102 (Fla. 3d DCA May 12, 2021), but, bound by our precedent, we reverse and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See also Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Tr. Co., 670 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Castranova v. Auth, 590 So.…
-
Kristopher A. Joyner v. Worley, 264 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…n part. We agree with the father that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs without first conducting a hearing and offering the father the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the fees claimed. See Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that absent stipulation, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees must be determined at an evidentiary hearing). Other than as discussed above, we aff…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 642 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)