MARTIN WIESENTHAL, APPELLANT,
v.
YVONNE L. WIESENTHAL, 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 husband appealed a contempt order for failing to pay alimony and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the contempt finding regarding alimony but reversed the contempt order as to the $18,000 in previously awarded attorney's fees and the $3,075 in additional attorney's fees, finding the latter awards lacked required factual findings regarding ability to pay and need.
The court affirmed the contempt order as predicated on failure to pay alimony but reversed it as predicated on failure to pay the $18,000 in attorney's fees, because that underlying fee award had been reversed in a companion appeal for lack of required findings. The court also reversed the $3,075 additional attorney's fee award for the same deficiency and remanded for reconsideration with proper factual findings regarding ability to pay and need.
[1] A contempt order predicated upon a failure to pay an attorney's fee award must be reversed if the underlying attorney's fee award is reversed.
[2] A trial court cannot award attorney's fees without making specific factual findings regarding the parties' net incomes, financial circumstances, ability to pay, and need…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This court has previously found that where an award is improper and requires reversal, a finding of contempt based upon such award must also be reversed.”
Establishes the principle that contempt findings based on improper underlying awards must be reversed along with those awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband was ordered to pay alimony and $18,000 in attorney's fees to his former wife. A June 2012 contempt order found him in willful viola…
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 Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
In the instant appeal, the former husband challenges a June 2012 order holding him in contempt for failing to pay both alimony and $18,000 in attorney’s fees previously awarded to the former wife and requiring him to pay additional attorney’s fees to the former wife totaling $3,075. The former husband insists the June 2012 order of contempt must be reversed because the trial court’s findings that he has the present ability to pay and that his failure to pay was willful and intentional are not supported by competent substantial evidence and because the order is itself deficient for a variety of reasons. We reject all these arguments without further comment and affirm the June 2012 contempt order to the extent it is predicated upon the former husband’s failure to pay alimony. We are compelled, however, to reverse the contempt order to the extent it is predicated upon the failure to pay the $18,000 in attorney’s fees previously awarded and to the extent it awards additional attorney’s fees to the former wife.
The $18,000 attorney’s fee award underlying the June 2012 contempt was the subject of the companion appeal in *489consolidated case numbers 4D11-3501, 4D11-4400 and 4D12-3515. In that appeal, we reversed the fee award as it was not supported by the requisite factual findings regarding the parties’ respective financial circumstances and need and ability to pay. The reversal of the underlying fee award necessitates reversal of the June 2012 contempt order to the extent it was predicated upon the failure to pay such fees. See, e.g., Brennan v. Brennan, 122 So.3d 923, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“This court has previously found that where an award is improper and requires reversal, a finding of contempt based upon such award must also be reversed.”).
As for the $3,075 in additional fees awarded to the former wife, it suffers from the same deficiencies that required reversal of the $18,000 fee award — it is not supported by the required factual findings. See Peterson v. DeLuca, 936 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A trial court cannot award attorney’s fees without making findings as to one spouse’s ability to pay fees and the other spouse’s need to have the fees paid.”); see also Glass v. Glass, 49 So.3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing fee award where order contained a finding that husband had the ability to pay, but no finding of need on the part of wife). The matter of the additional attorney’s fees is remanded to the trial court, with directions that the trial court reconsider the issue after making specific factual findings regarding the parties’ net incomes and financial circumstances and findings regarding both the ability to pay fees and the need thereof.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; and Remanded.
MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721. As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal). Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former hus…
-
Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
-
Rich v. Rich (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721. As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal). Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former hus…
Authorities Cited
- Brennan v. Brennan, 122 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Poux v. State, 936 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Stringer v. Grove, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Glass v. Glass, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)