AL FELDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ALDA PHYLLIS FELDMAN, 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 the award of attorneys' fees was proper, but the assessment of costs was improperly calculated and must be remanded.
Appellant husband appealed an order assessing costs against him and awarding attorneys' fees to appellee wife after a hearing on a complaint to modify…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant husband, plaintiff below, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court assessing costs against him and awarding attorneys’ fees to appellee wife, defendant below.
This action was originated when appellant filed a complaint seeking to modify a final judgment of divorce incorporating a property settlement agreement between the parties. Subsequent to ruling on the merits of appellant’s complaint, after a hearing, the trial court in an order dated May 29, 1975, assessed costs against him and awarded attorneys’ fees to appellee. From the order, appellant brings this appeal.
Appellant makes several assignments of error contending basically that the trial court erred in entering the order because it was contrary to law and the evidence. Appellant also contends that due to the posture of case in the trial court it was premature for costs to be assessed against him. Appellee contends to the contrary.
It is well settled that an appellate court will not disturb an order of the trial court in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown. There is a presumption in favor of the proper exercise of discretion, and the burden is on appellant to clearly show that there was a palpable abuse of discretion. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 326 & 327, and the cases cited therein.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversi-' ble error has been demonstrated in regard to the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee, however, it is clear that the costs assessed against appellant were improperly calculated by including certain costs of appeal. Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed as to the award of attorneys’ fees and reversed as to the assessment of costs and remanded for a determination of the correct amount.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vidal v. Rivas, 556 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…atutes (1985). Section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1985); Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983); Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Weiner v. Weiner, 403 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Feldman v. Feldman, 324 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We find no merit in the cross appeal urging that the trial court should not have reduced the amount of fees earned by the counsel for the appellee. Although the record demonstrates that counsel for the appellee expended more tim…
-
Hidalgo v. Binder (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…C v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 163 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “An appellate court will not disturb an order of the trial court in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown.” Feldman v. Feldman, 324 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Tikhomirov v. Bank of New York Mellon, 223 So. 3d 1112, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding a trial court is accorded broad discretion in determining rule 1.540(b) motions). Discussion The parties argue that this Court sho…
-
Mesa v. Miami-Dade Cnty. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…nk of New York Mellon, 223 So. 3d 1112, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “[A]n appellate court will not disturb an order of the trial court in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown.” Feldman v. Feldman, 324 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The burden is on the appellant to clearly show such an abuse of discretion. Id. LEGAL ANALYSIS Rule 1.540(b)(1) authorizes the trial court to relieve a party from an order of dismissal for mistake, inadvertence, surprise o…