ARTHUR COLLIN CHERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHERINE HIETT VIKER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's award of temporary attorney's fees and suit money in a child support case because the court's findings on the parties' financial resources lacked evidentiary support, resting only on counsel argument.
An award of temporary attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 61.16 must be based on competent, substantial evidence of the party's need and the other party's ability to pay, not merely counsel argument.
[1] An award of temporary attorney's fees under section 61.16 must be supported by competent, substantial evidence of the requesting party's need and the other party's abilit…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees.”
Court citing Giovanini v. Giovanini to establish the evidentiary requirement for attorney's fee awards.
In a child support and custody case, the trial court awarded temporary attorney's fees and suit money to the appellee based on findings regarding the …
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 Fla. Stat. § 61.16 cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal of a non-final order awarding temporary attorney’s fees and suit money to Appellee in a child support and custody case, Appellant contends that the trial court’s order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We agree to the extent that the trial court’s findings regarding the parties’ financial resources are not supported by the evidence because only argument of counsel — and no evidence — was presented at the hearing below. Thus, the court could not have properly determined the need of the party seeking fees or the ability of the other party to pay.. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See Baker v. Baker, 35 So.3d 76, 77-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding an award of temporary fees where party seeking fee award failed to produce evidence to support the award because “a temporary award does not create vested rights”). By this disposition, we expressly decline to reach the issue of whether the record supports the amounts of suit money and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cherry v. Viker, 254 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…a motion seeking temporary attorney’s fees, and the trial court awarded her fees totaling $25,000. On appeal of that order, this Court reversed and remanded because the award was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Cherry v. Viker, 197 So. 3d 1292 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). During the pendency of that appeal, Appellee filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b). The same day the opinion issued reversing the temporary fees award, th…
-
Ehiabor v. Ehiabor (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Baker v. Baker, 35 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)