DAVID L. DOOD
v.
LORI L. DOOD
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.
David Dood appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging awards for alimony, child support, and attorney fees. The court affirms the alimony and child support awards but reverses the attorney fee award due to lack of adequate findings justifying the amount, and remands for the trial court to make the necessary findings.
The court affirmed the alimony and child support awards because the lack of a trial transcript precluded appellate review of the sufficiency of evidence. However, the court reversed the attorney fee award because the trial court failed to include any findings justifying the amount of the award, as such findings are required regardless of the adequacy of the record on appeal.
[1] An award of attorney fees in a dissolution proceeding must be supported by specific findings of fact justifying the amount of the award, and the absence of such findings…
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“[A]n award of attorney's fees without adequate findings justifying the amount of the award is reversible even where the appellant has provided an inadequate record of the trial court proceedings.”
Court citing Macarty v. Macarty regarding the standard for reversibility of attorney fee awards
David Dood, the former husband, sought to appeal a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Lori Dood. The judgment included awards for alimony, chil…
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 Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Dood, the former husband, appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Lori Dood, the former wife. He challenges the alimony, child support, and attorney fee award on appeal. Because he has not provided this court with a transcript, we are precluded from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the alimony and child support awards or the former wife's entitlement to attorney fees. See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264–65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (explaining that a failure to provide a transcript or an adequate substitute is "usually fatal" to the appellant's claim that the trial court failed to make adequate findings under section 61.08); see also Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("While an award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding pursuant to section 61.16 and Rosen [v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)] requires specific findings of fact to support the trial court's entitlement determination, such findings may be made in the written final judgment or at the hearing. In the absence of a hearing transcript, we cannot say that the trial court erred in this regard." (citations omitted)).
However, we reverse the portion of the final judgment awarding attorney fees because the trial court did not include any findings justifying the amount of the award. See Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[A]n award of attorney's fees without adequate findings justifying the amount of the award is reversible even where the appellant has provided an inadequate record of the trial court proceedings." (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265)); see also Ivanovich v. Valladarez, 190 So. 3d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("The lack of findings supporting the award of attorney's fees is reversible error despite the [appellant's] failure to provide an adequate record of the hearing."); R.M.F. v. D.C., 55 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings required under Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SLEET, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jade EVA Merriman v. Braian Uriel Adler, 338 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- MacArty v. MacArty, 29 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Justine Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Alejandra Ivanovich v. Valladarez, 190 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- R.M.F. v. D.C., 55 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)