ARVITA M. COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL BLAND, 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.
Former Wife seeks review of a trial court's post-mandate order awarding $5,000 toward appellate attorney's fees and costs while denying her motion to tax appellate costs. The appellate court remands because the trial court failed to specify how the $5,000 award was apportioned among appellate fees, appellate costs, and post-mandate trial-level fees.
The trial court's order must be remanded because it failed to specify whether the $5,000 award applied to appellate attorney's fees, appellate costs, or post-mandate trial-level attorney's fees, precluding meaningful appellate review.
[1] An appellate court can undertake no meaningful review of sums awarded by a lower court when the lower court fails to stipulate in its order what amounts awarded pertain t…
[2] A trial court must apportion attorney's fees and/or costs between appellate and trial work when the award is not clearly delineated.
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“because the trial court failed to specify in its order whether the $5000 award applied to appellate attorney's fees, appellate costs, or post-mandate attorney's fees at the trial court level, we are precluded from meaningful review of the award”
Establishes the core holding that lack of specificity in apportioning fees prevents meaningful appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFormer Wife and Former Husband were in a marital dissolution proceeding. On a prior appeal, the appellate court found that a portion of Former Husband…
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 Motion To Tax Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL COURT’S POST-MANDATE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND DENIAL OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), Arvita M. Coleman (“Former Wife”) seeks review of a trial court order that she contends awarded her attorney’s fees, but denied her motion for taxation of appellate costs.
Former Wife previously appealed the final judgment, later amended, dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland (“Former Husband”). At that time, we found no reversible error as to any of the issues raised, except as to whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. Coleman v. Bland, 73 So.3d 795, 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We determined that the record showed that a small portion of the pension was earned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset; therefore, we remanded -as to only that issue for the court to make proper findings as to the disposition of Former Husband’s pension. Id. at 796. We separately entered an order granting Former Wife’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees conditioned upon the trial court finding need of Former Wife and commensurate ability to pay of Former Husband, and remanded the case to the trial court to assess the amount of the award, if any.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a), Former Wife then timely filed a motion to tax appellate costs. She also separately filed a motion in the trial court seeking an award of temporary attorney’s fees needed to litigate the issue on remand regarding the Former Husband’s pension. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on all issues, and entered an order, which provided in pertinent part:
2. The Former Husband shall pay the Former Wife the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for and as a contribution toward the Former Wife’s appellate attorney’s fees and costs and post-judgment non-appellate attorney’s fees and costs.
3. Said $5,000 shall be paid at the rate of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per month beginning September 29, 2014.
In the instant case, Former Wife contends the trial court erred in not awarding *754her the full amount of her appellate attorney’s fees and in denying her request for appellate costs.1 However, because the trial court failed to specify in its order whether the $5000 award applied to appellate attorney’s fees, appellate costs, or post-mandate attorney’s fees at the trial court level, we are precluded from meaningful review of the award. See Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of E. Fla., 483 So.2d 852, 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (stating that “we can undertake no meaningful review of the sums awarded because the lower court failed to stipulate in its order what amounts awarded pertain to appellate fees and costs as opposed to trial fees and costs”). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of apportioning attorney’s fees and/or costs awarded between appellate and trial work.2
REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., and LAWSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 200 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…, 971 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795, 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("Coleman I"), rev. denied, 91 So. 3d 131 (Fla.2012); Coleman v. Bland, 151 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (table) (“Coleman II"); Coleman v. Bland, 152 So. 3d 752, 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ("Coleman III")] Coleman v. Bland, 187 So. 3d 298, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Coleman IV”). All of the above appeals except Coleman II resulted in reversals of the trial court’s disposition of Former Wife’s $88.50 per month i…
Authorities Cited
- Richitelli v. State, 687 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla., 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- 1501 SE 24TH Rd., LLC v. The Est. OF Palma Pasqualini, 953 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)