ROBERT MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA Y. MITCHELL, 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.
Robert Mitchell appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Cynthia Y. Mitchell, challenging the equitable distribution, alimony award, and attorney's fee award. The court affirmed the equitable distribution and alimony but reversed and remanded the attorney's fee award due to insufficient findings.
The trial court reversibly erred in awarding attorney's fees because it failed to make specific findings as to the number of hours expended by the former wife's attorney or whether those hours were reasonable. Generalized findings that merely recite the amounts are insufficient under Florida law.
[1] A trial court's award of attorney's fees in dissolution proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by awarding attorney's fees without making the requisite findings as to the proper amount.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter, including enforcement and modification proceedings and appeals.”
Establishes the statutory authority for awarding attorney's fees in family law matters under § 61.16(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Mitchell and Cynthia Y. Mitchell were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court entered a final judgment that dissolved …
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 Financial Resources Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Mitchell, the former husband, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage that dissolved the union between him and Cynthia Y. Mitchell, the former wife. Specifically, Mr. Mitchell challenges the equitable distribution, the alimony award in favor of Mrs. Mitchell, and the requirement that he pay a portion of Mrs. Mitchell’s attorney’s fees. We find no error in either the equitable distribution or the alimony award and affirm as to each without further comment. As explained below, however, we find merit in Mr. Mitchell’s claim of error as to the attorney’s fee award, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellate courts apply the abuse of discretion standard to review a lower court’s award of attorney’s fees. Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. White, 97 So.3d 907, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). A court’s award of attorney’s fees is controlled by section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides:
The court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter, including enforcement and modification proceedings and appeals.
§ 61.16(1). Furthermore, in Norman v. Norman, 939 So.2d 240, 241-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we held that a trial court reversibly errs when it awards attorney’s fees without making the requisite findings as to the proper amount, as required by Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). “The lack of findings constitutes reversible error, even if there is competent, substantial evidence to support the award.” Id. at 242 (quoting Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So.2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)); see also Ard v. Ard, 765 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (remand of attorney’s fee award required where the trial court made no findings as to the attorney’s hours expended, hourly rate, or reasonableness of the fee). Significantly, “[a] dissolution order directing a party to pay the other party’s fees and costs, which recites simply that the total *1230amounts ‘are reasonable time spent and hourly rates,’ is insufficient under Rowe.” Id.
Here, the final judgment does not make specific findings as to the number of hours expended by the former wife’s attorney, or whether those hours are reasonable. These findings are required under Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151-52. Rather, the final judgment simply recites that “the hours and rate per hour on the Wife’s ‘Amended Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs’ are reasonable.” Such generalized findings are inadequate, and reversal and remand are in order to allow the trial court to make the requisite findings. See Norman, 939 So.2d at 242; see also Ard, 765 So.2d at 107.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERTS, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abbott v. Abbott, 187 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…by section 61.08); see also Vitro v. Vitro, 122 So. 3d 382, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Lastly, a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and is controlled by section 61.16, Florida Statutes. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 141 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2013), provides that “[t]he court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit mon…
-
Hutchinson v. Hattie P. Hutchinson, 185 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…usband to pay $6,000 of the Former Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. This appeal followed. The trial court’s award of attorney’s fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and is controlled by section 61.16, Florida Statutes. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 141 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The purpose of section 61.16 is “ ‘to ensure that both parties will have a similar ability to obtain competent legal counsel’ as such, the ultimate issue of fees and costs must be primarily based on the parties’ respective…
-
Windsor Falls Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Davis, 265 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- ARD v. ARD, 765 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Norman v. Norman, 939 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. Bonnie K. White, M.D., 97 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)