CHRIS BECKSTROM, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE BECKSTROM, 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 held that a trial court must make requisite written findings regarding a party's ability to pay attorney's fees and the factual basis for a payment plan, reversing the award for lack of such findings.
[1] A trial court must make written findings regarding a party's ability to pay attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding.
[2] A trial court must set forth a factual basis for imposing a specific payment plan for attorney's fees in a dissolution judgment.
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 intelligenceA former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution, arguing the court erred in awarding attorney's fees and requiring life insurance without ma…
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 Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
It’s all about the written findings or lack thereof. A former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution. He argues the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and requiring him to secure life insurance without making the requisite written findings. We agree in part and reverse the judgment as it relates to the attorney’s fees award. We affirm on the life insurance issue.
The trial court heard the contested issues and entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband moved for rehearing, raising the attorney’s fees issue and the lack of findings regarding his ability to pay. The trial court denied the motion. From the underlying judgment of dissolution, the former husband now appeals.
We review “a fee award in a dissolution proceeding [for] abuse of discretion.” Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So.3d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation omitted).
The former husband argues the trial court’s order on attorney’s fees fails to contain the requisite factual findings on his ability to pay, the reasonableness of the hours expended and hourly rate, and the basis for the court’s payment plan.1 The former wife argues section 61.16, Florida Statutes, does not require specific factual findings regarding attorney’s fees, and the judgment adequately addressed the reasonableness of the fees awarded. We agree with the former husband on his first point and reverse.
Section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2014) provides: “The court may from time to time, after considering the financial re*1069sources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees.... ” We previously reversed a final judgment that included an “award of attorney’s fees because the trial court did not make findings concerning the former wife’s need and the former husband’s ability to pay fees and costs.” DeLillo v. DeLillo, 848 So.2d 454, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Baime v. Baime, 850 So.2d 606, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The trial court is required to make findings regarding the parties’ respective financial needs and abilities to pay. Failure to do so requires reversal.”) (internal citation omitted).
Here, the trial court found the former wife was in need of attorney’s fees, but did not make a finding as to the former husband’s ability to pay. We therefore reverse the judgment, on this issue and remand the case to the trial court to make the requisite written findings.
The former husband next argues the trial court erred in ordering a payment plan without the requisite factual finding. We also agree with him on this issue. “[W]hile the trial court has discretion to allow payment of an award of attorney’s fees over time, it' must set forth some factual basis for imposing the specific payment plan selected.” Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So.3d 288, 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Here, the trial court found, “[t]he [former] [h]us-band shall pay $5,000.00 toward the [former] [w]ife’s attorney’s fees and costs within thirty days of the date of this Final Judgment with the balance of $5,615.00 payable before or on August 15, 2014.” The trial court did not set forth any factual basis for imposing this specific payment plan. We therefore reverse the judgment on this issue and remand the case to the trial court. We disagree with the former husband, however, that the judgment failed to make the requisite findings on the reasonableness of the hours expended and hourly rate. We find the judgment sufficient in that regard and affirm on that issue.
We also find no merit in the former husband’s argument on the life insurance issue. “‘Under the invited error rale, a party cannot successfully complain about an error for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she invited the court to make.’ ” Anderson v. State, 93 So.3d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Muina v. Canning, 111 So.2d 550, 553-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). Here, the former husband agreed to purchase a $100,000 life insurance policy and included such a provision in his proposed final judgment. He cannot now complain that the trial court erred in including such a provision in the final judgment. See, e.g., Hill v. Hooten, 776 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
We therefore reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case to the trial court for additional findings to support the court’s award. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded,
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and TAYLOR J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bauchman v. Berta Bauchman, 253 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…this matter to the trial court for further proceedings on this issue. II. Award of Attorney's Fees to Former Wife An award of attorney's fees stemming from a dissolution proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Beckstrom v. Beckstrom , 183 So. 3d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). A court's determination of an appropriate attorney's fee award is governed by section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2017), which requires the trial court to consider and evaluate each party's financial resources in deciding…
-
Smith v. Vernia Smith, 226 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…Former Husband, who. only has $1,250.53 remaining .each month as surplus after subtracting his gross monthly expenses from his net monthly income, could pay the attorney’s fees award on top of the equalizing payment. Like in Beckstrom v. Beckstrom, 183 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), “the trial court found the former wife was in need of attorney’s fees, but did not make a finding as to" the former husband’s ability to pay. We therefore reverse the judgment 'on this issue and remand the case to the trial cour…
-
Fredrick Scire v. Hochman, 268 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…AGE 3--- 3 payment plan.” “I’ll break it up over five years with no interest. That’s a month.” But, the order did not make findings to support the court’s conclusion. Factual findings for the payment plan must be made. Beckstrom v. Beckstrom, 183 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Their absence requires us to reverse and remand the case to the trial court to make the requisite findings. Id. The father next argues the trial court failed to make a finding on the hours reasonably expended in this li…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Baime v. Baime, 850 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Ramdamar v. State, 848 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Muina v. Cornelia Canning and Judy Dew, 717 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Noveshen v. LAW Offs. OF Barry Franklin & Assocs., 93 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)