JOSE A. OCHOA, APPELLANT,
v.
CONCEPCION OCHOA, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the appellant husband challenges the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to the appellee. The court affirms the award, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in setting reasonable fees for the appellee's counsel, particularly given the appellant's evasive conduct regarding asset disclosure.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs, finding no abuse of discretion. Although the appellant contested the award based on his claimed inability to pay (alleging the fees represented 23-36% of his net worth), he produced no evidence to support this contention, and the issue was submitted to the trial court on stipulation of the parties.
[1] A party's agreement in a property settlement to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the trial judge is enforceable.
[2] A party contesting the reasonableness of an attorneys' fees award based on ability to pay must present evidence to support that contention in the trial court.
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“Good faith attempts were made by appellee's counsel to obtain information concerning the nature and extent of appellant husband's assets and income. However, appellant took evasive actions in response to these attempts.”
Establishes the appellant's conduct that justified the award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 1971, the appellee filed for dissolution of marriage and was represented by counsel who made good faith attempts to obtain information ab…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant husband seeks review of a final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to appellee.
In September 1971, appellee, Concepcion Ochoa, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and was represented originally by Paul Steinberg who was replaced by James Dougherty, II. Good faith attempts were made by appellee’s counsel to obtain information concerning the nature and extent of appellant husband’s assets and income. However, appellant took evasive actions in response to these attempts. Appellee was awarded temporary alimony and child support. After trial commenced, appellee moved the court for temporary costs resulting from the failure of her husband to disclose truthfully the nature and extent of his assets and income. On March 14, 1972 the court granted the motion and required appellant to reimburse appellee’s counsel $1,482.51, which he finally paid after an adjudication of contempt. After extensive negotiation, on June 9, 1972 a property settlement was agreed upon, executed between the parties and made a part of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage on June 28, 1972. This settlement included a provision whereby appellant agreed to pay the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of her proceeding by the trial judge. After a hearing as to'the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, the lower court granted an award of $12,200 to James Dougherty, II and $700 to Paul Steinberg. Thereafter, upon motion of Mr. Dougherty, an additional $471.25 was awarded to him as costs which the court found to be directly attributable to the appellant’s false testimony throughout the entirety of the contested proceedings prior to acceptance of the settlement.
On appeal, the appellant is contesting the reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
However, in oral argument the appellant did not contest the award of attorneys’ fees and costs as being unreasonable insofar as the value of the legal services were concerned, but rather he contested the amount based on his ability to pay. He alleged that the attorneys’ fees represented approximately 23-36% of his net worth. Nevertheless, he produced no witnesses in the court below to support this contention.
The issue of attorneys’ fees and costs was submitted to the trial court on stipulation of the parties and it follows where, as in the case sub judice, there appears to be no abuse of discretion, the judgment of the lower court must be and hereby is affirmed. See Lee v. Lee, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 6; Lodding v. Dunn, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 560; Johnson v. Kruglak, *269Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 617; Zohlman v. Zohlman, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 532; and Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. Fisher, 318 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…he was entitled to a $3,500 attorney’s fee; his expert, Ray Pearson, testified that a reasonable fee would be $3,600. . This factor is an obvious and important distinction between this case and this court’s holding in Ochoa v. Ochoa, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 267, cited by the appellees.…
-
Coll v. Coll, 350 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371, 379 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Ochoa v. Ochoa, 275 So. 2d 267 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Lee v. Lee, 262 So. 2d 6 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Williams v. Williams, 177 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1965).…
-
Tietig v. Kusik, 279 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…awarded is a matter largely within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and unless he has abused his discretion, his determination will not be disturbed. See Oncay v. Oncay, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 878 and Ochoa v. Ochoa, FIa.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 267 and cases cited therein. We find [*892] therefore that this argument will not prevail. We also have considered appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirme…
Authorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Voyle C. Johnson v. Kruglak, 246 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Madaline Lodding and Woodrow C. Lodding v. Dunn, 251 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- LEE v. LEE, 262 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)