BRUCE A. BOB, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIET BOB, 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.
The court held that an award of attorneys fees was improper where the pleadings did not seek fees and no evidence was presented.
Following a dissolution judgment, the wife filed a motion for contempt due to non-payment of alimony. The husband responded, and neither party appeare…
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 Sua Sponte Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the husband, Bruce A. Bob, from an order of the trial court directing the husband to pay the sum of $250 as attorneys fees to the wife’s attorney on a post-judgment motion for non-payment of the alimony provided in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
The wife, while in New York, filed an affidavit stating that she has not received any alimony payments from the husband, as provided in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, together with a motion for contempt and a notice of hearing. On the day before the hearing, the husband, residing in California, filed a response to the motion and an affidavit stating his reasons for not paying the alimony. No testimony was taken by the trial judge since neither the wife nor the husband appeared at the hearing, although both were represented by counsel. The husband was not held in contempt, but the court sua sponte ordered him to pay the sum of $250 to the wife’s attorneys for services in connection with the filing of the motion for contempt and the hearing thereon. The order herein appealed does not reflect any reason for such award. We also note that the wife’s attorneys did not request attorneys fees in the motion or at the hearing.
In'the posture of this case, an award of attorneys fees was improper where the pleadings did not seek attorneys fees and there was no evidence presented relative to the issue of attorneys fees. Fairall v. Fairall, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 339; Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 34; Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 243.
Therefore, under the facts presented, it was error for the court to award attorneys fees and we reverse.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ndication of an intention to do so, summarily awarded him attorney’s fees for defending the application. As Rosen’s counsel candidly and commendably conceded at oral argument, this order was incorrectly entered and is therefore reversed. Bob v. Bob, 312 So. 2d 798 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) (attorney’s fee not awardable in matrimonial proceeding in absence of proper prayer or other previous notice); see Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 398 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (proper motion, notice, and…
-
Bull v. Bartley Bull, 584 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nor given the former wife notice that fees would be at issue.1 Johnson v. Johnson, 346 So. 2d 591, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accord Meek v. Meek, 486 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Christie v. Casaday, 486 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bob v. Bob, 312 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). REVERSED. SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . It is not essential for a prevailing party to request attorney’s fees when the party is entitled to such fees by statute, but a request for fees must be specifically pled under section…
Authorities Cited
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 211 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Fairall v. Goldie E. Fairall, 178 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)