RYAN CHANDLER, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
SCARLETT KIBBEY, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Ryan Chandler appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution, challenging the trial court's award of attorney's fees to his former wife, Scarlett Kibbey. The appellate court reverses the attorney's fee award due to the trial court's failure to make required factual findings regarding the reasonableness of the fees under the Rowe factors, while affirming the remainder of the judgment.
Reversal of the attorney's fee award is warranted where the trial court failed to make required findings relating to the reasonableness of the award. The court affirms the remainder of the final judgment but reverses and remands the attorney's fee award for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court's failure to make required findings regarding the reasonableness of an attorney's fee award constitutes reversible error.
[2] When awarding attorney's fees, a trial court must make specific factual findings concerning the total hours expended, the hourly rate, and the reasonableness of the fee.
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“the trial court failed to make certain findings relating to the reasonableness of the award”
Establishes the core error requiring reversal of the attorney's fee award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRyan Chandler and Scarlett Kibbey were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution that i…
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.
Appellant, Ryan Chandler, appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution. He raises two issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. We agree with Appellant that reversal of the attorney’s fee award to Ap-pellee, Scarlett Kibbey, is warranted where the trial court failed to make certain findings relating to the reasonableness of the award. See Norman v. Norman, 939 So.2d 240, 241-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) *1011(holding that the trial court’s failure to make the required findings as to the amount of fees pursuant to Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), constituted reversible error); see also Bradham v. Bradham, 120 So.3d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the attorney’s fee award where the trial court found that the former wife had a need for a contribution to her attorney’s fees and costs, the former husband had an ability to pay, and the former wife submitted an affidavit from her attorney’s law firm attesting to the fees and costs incurred, but there was no indication that the trial court considered the Rowe factors); Ard v. Ard, 765 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing and remanding the attorney’s fee award where there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the award, but the trial court failed to make factual findings regarding the total number of hours expended by the former •wife’s attorney, the hourly rate, or the reasonableness of the fee). Accordingly, we reverse the attorney’s fee award and remand for further proceedings. We otherwise affirm the final judgment.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- ARD v. ARD, 765 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Norman v. Norman, 939 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Philpot v. State, 120 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Bradham v. Bradham, 120 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)