EDWARD SAMUEL KALIS
v.
CARMEN M. KALIS
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 clerical work performed by a secretary is not compensable as attorney's fees in a dissolution judgment.
[1] Clerical or secretarial work performed by an attorney's secretary or support staff cannot be included as a recoverable attorney's fee and must be deducted from any fee aw…
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 intelligenceThe former husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in including cleric…
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 Clerical Work cases and more on FLexlaw
Caryn A. Stevens and Eddie Stephens of Ward, Damon, Posner, Pheterson & Bleau, West Palm Beach, for appellee Carmen M. Kalis a/k/a Carmita Kalis.
GERBER, J.
The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband raises several arguments, one of which has merit, as the former wife concedes. That is, the trial court erred in including within the assessment of attorney’s fees and costs $3,766.50 for clerical work which the former wife’s attorney’s secretary performed. See, e.g., Youngblood v. Youngblood, 91 So. 3d 190, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (clerical or secretarial activities are not properly included in an attorney’s fee award). We agree with the concession of error on this argument, and remand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment of dissolution which deducts that $3,766.50 sum.
On all of the former husband’s other arguments on appeal, we affirm without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for amendment of judgment. DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca View Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lepselter (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Youngblood v. Youngblood, 91 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)