JEREMY OFFICE
v.
SHERRY OFFICE
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.
A trial court's award of attorney's fees in a family law enforcement proceeding must be supported by specific factual findings establishing either the prevailing party's need for fees or the other party's inequitable conduct.
[1] In a family law enforcement proceeding, an award of attorney's fees must be supported by specific factual findings establishing either the prevailing party's financial ne…
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“Although the trial court's citation to Bitterman indicates that it may have awarded Former Wife fees under the inequitable conduct doctrine, the order does not list the specific factual findings necessary to conclude that Former Husband engaged in inequitable conduct.”
Court's explanation for why the fee award was inadequate
Jeremy Office appealed a trial court order granting Sherry Office's motion to enforce their final judgment of dissolution and premarital settlement ag…
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 Enforcement Of Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Office (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Sherry Office’s (“Former Wife’s”) motion to enforce the parties’ final judgment of dissolution and premarital settlement agreement. Former Husband also appeals the trial court’s subsequent order awarding Former Wife attorney’s fees for the enforcement proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s order granting Former Wife’s motion to enforce without further comment. However, we reverse the order awarding fees and remand for the trial court to indicate the basis for the award.
The trial court’s order awarding fees simply stated that Former Wife was entitled to fees and cited to Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), and Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998), to support that assertion. However, it is not apparent from the record that Former Wife had a need for fees. See Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1999)). Although the trial court’s citation to Bitterman indicates that it may have awarded Former Wife fees under the inequitable conduct doctrine, the order does not list the specific factual findings necessary to conclude that Former Husband engaged in inequitable conduct. See Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002). Therefore, we reverse the order and remand this matter back to the trial court to make the necessary factual findings to support either a ruling that Former Wife has a need for fees or that Former Husband’s conduct justified the imposition of fees under the “inequitable conduct doctrine.” See Bitterman, 714 So. 2d at 365.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graydus v. Graydus (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)…e’s need. As we determined in Bauchman, “[a]bsent any factual findings supporting former wife’s need for attorney’s fees, we can only conclude that the trial court committed error.” 253 So. 3d at 1149 (citation omitted); see also Office v. Office, 287 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“The trial court’s order awarding fees simply stated that Former Wife was entitled to fees . . . . However, it is not apparent from the record that Former Wife had a need for fees.”); Bohner v. Bohner, 997 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Bitterman v. Anette Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998)
- Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)