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.
In this sixth appeal in a twelve-year dissolution case, the former wife challenges the trial court's prospective-only award of her pension interest and the denial of appellate attorney's fees and costs. The appellate court affirmed the pension distribution but reversed and remanded regarding attorney's fees and costs for one of the two prior appeals.
The court affirmed the trial court's prospective pension award as the court properly followed the appellate directive to reconsider the proper disposition under Florida Statutes section 61.075. However, the court reversed the denial of appellate attorney's fees and costs in Case No. 5D14-3779 because the trial court's finding that the former husband was unable to pay contradicted its prior fee award without evidence, and the former wife prevailed on the significant issue and filed a timely costs motion. The denial of fees in Case No. 5D10-1326 was affirmed because the former wife waived further challenge by abandoning those issues.
[1] A trial court's reconsideration of a pension's proper disposition, following an appellate directive to consider statutory factors, is not barred by res judicata, beyond t…
[2] A trial court's denial of appellate attorney's fees is not supported by competent, substantial evidence when it contradicts a prior award without additional evidence or a…
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 trial court followed this court's directive to reconsider the "proper disposition" of the marital portion of the pension by considering the factors in section 61.075, Florida Statutes”
Establishes that the trial court's prospective pension award was within the scope of remand and properly applied statutory factors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArvita Coleman and Michael Bland were divorced after a twelve-year case involving multiple appeals concerning the division of the former husband's pen…
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 Scope Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Arvita Coleman (“Former Wife”) appeals from a final order on remand determining her interest in the pension of Michael Bland (“Former Husband”) and denying appellate attorney’s fees and *240costs from a prior appeal.1 She first challenges the trial court’s failure to award her share of the Former Husband’s pension retroactive to the date of the dissolution petition, asserting that the court’s prospective-only award resulted in an unequal property distribution that: (1) was barred by res judicata as it could have been raised in a prior appeal; (2) was beyond the scope of remand; (3) was beyond the scope of the pleadings as Former Husband never sought an unequal distribution; and (4) lacked justification or supporting evidence. These arguments lack merit as the record demonstrates that the trial court followed this court’s directive to reconsider the “proper disposition” of the marital portion of the pension by considering the factors in section 61.075, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the order relating to the pension.
Next, Former Wife argues that the trial court’s denials of appellate attorney’s fees and costs are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Both arguments are well taken as to Case No. 5D14-3779, but not Case No. 5D10-1326. Regarding Case No. 5D14-3779, the trial court’s finding that Former Husband was unable to pay appellate attorney’s fees contradicted its prior attorney’s fee award without any additional evidence or hearing, and was unsupported by the record given the very large disparity in the parties’ incomes. Similarly, Former Wife prevailed on the significant issue in that appeal and filed a timely motion for costs. Accordingly, we reverse those portions of the order and remand for reconsideration of appellate costs and fees. Regarding Case No. 5D10-1326, Former Wife waived any further challenge to appellate fees and costs by abandoning those issues in Coleman TV.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IN CASE NO. 5D14-3779.
LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 187 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Arvita M. Bland v. Bland, 971 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 152 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)