HARRY H. HAHAMOVITCH, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANNE L. HAHAMOVITCH, 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 this dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the extent it included travel time for the wife's counsel, holding that absent special circumstances or proof that competent local counsel cannot be obtained, travel fees should not be included in attorney's fee awards. The court affirmed the award of costs.
Attorney's fees in dissolution cases should not include travel time over and above what a local attorney would charge unless special circumstances are demonstrated, such as inability to obtain competent local counsel or travel requirements caused by vexatious litigation by the other party. The award of costs, even if broader than the Statewide Uniform Guidelines, is permissible in dissolution proceedings under Florida Statutes section 61.16.
[1] Attorney's fees awarded in dissolution cases should not include travel time unless there is proof that competent local counsel could not be obtained.
[2] Travel time may be taxed in a dissolution case under special circumstances, such as when a party reasonably selects counsel from a distance due to the unavailability of l…
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“[W]ithout proof that a competent local attorney could not be obtained, an award of attorney's fees from an opponent should not include travel time over and above what a local attorney would charge.”
Establishes the general rule that travel fees are not recoverable without proof that competent local counsel is unavailable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Hahamovitch appealed an order in a dissolution of marriage case awarding his wife Dianne attorney's fees that included travel time for her couns…
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 Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the order on appeal to the extent that it awarded the wife attorney’s fees for the travel time of her counsel. See Mandel v. Decorator’s Mart, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, 965 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[W]ithout proof that a competent local attorney could not be obtained, an award of attorney’s fees from an opponent should not include travel time over and above what a local attorney would charge.”); Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So.2d 406, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing fees in a dissolution case for the time the wife’s Polk County counsel spent traveling to and from Sarasota County); Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d 190, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“[W]e are faced with the question of whether [t]ravel time is properly included in an award of attorneys’ fees. We think not.”).
We acknowledge that there may be special circumstances in which travel fees may be taxed in a dissolution case. See Wright v. Wright, 577 So.2d 1355, 1357-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (wife did not act unreasonably in selecting counsel 60 miles away from her residence, which was located in a small community where the husband was a prominent physician); Bohner v. Bohner, 24 So.3d 622, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in including the additional time expended traveling to hearings caused by the husband’s vexatious litigation). But in this case no such special circumstances were shown. There was no evidence that competent counsel could not be obtained in Palm Beach County, nor was there a finding that the travel time was required due to any excessive or vexatious litigation by the husband.
On remand, the trial court is directed to eliminate attorney travel time from the fee award. Although the parties dispute how much of the fee award was based on the inclusion of attorney travel time, we leave this determination to the trial court in the first instance.
We find no abuse of discretion, however, in the award of costs, even though some of the costs were not within the scope of the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Action. See Payne v. Payne, 481 So.2d 551, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The “suit money” authorized in dissolution proceedings under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, contemplates a broader range of expenses than the costs which are ordinarily taxable in other civil cases. Id.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
TAYLOR, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Wright v. Wright, 577 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Mandel v. Decorator's Mart, 965 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Hopkins v. Zipp Sporting Goods, Inc., 330 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Payne v. Payne, 481 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bohner v. Bohner, 24 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)