CHARLES B. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ADELINE S. JOHNSON, 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 spousal support enforcement case, the court reversed and remanded a judgment imposing child support arrearage because the trial judge failed to properly credit rental income received during the relevant period and awarded attorney's fees without hearing evidence on reasonableness.
The court reversed the attorney's fee award and remanded for further evidence on reasonableness. The court also remanded the arrearage computation because the trial court credited only $300 in rental income when the record showed the wife received at least $450 in rental payments, possibly more, requiring clarification.
[1] An award of attorney's fees requires evidence of the reasonableness of the fee.
[2] A court must remand a case for further evidence when the calculation of arrearages is based on an incorrect assessment of rental income credited to a party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The wife acknowledges that she needs an income of $400.00 per month which said HUSBAND shall pay at the rate of $100.00 per week, but that the monthly support payments may be reduced by a proportional amount on all rentals (home excluded) from property transferred”
The original stipulation establishing the husband's support obligation with the rental offset provision that became central to the arrearage dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles and Adeline Johnson's marriage was dissolved on August 21, 1974, pursuant to a stipulation requiring the husband to pay $100 per week for the …
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 Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the appel-lee incorporated the following stipulation:
The wife acknowledges that she needs an income of $400.00 per month which said HUSBAND shall pay at the rate of $100.00 per week, but that the monthly support payments may be reduced by a proportional amount on all rentals (home excluded) from property transferred
The marriage was dissolved on August 21, 1974 and in August of 1976 the parties attempted to modify the stipulation agreement by reducing the monthly payments due thereunder to $200.00 per month. The appellant failed to live up to either the terms of the initial stipulation or the attempted modification and a motion on rule to show cause was filed.
Appellant contends on appeal that the judge erred in computing his arrearage and in the award of a $350.00 fee to the appel-lee’s attorney.
The appellee confesses error relative to the award of attorney’s fee made without the benefit of evidence relative to reasonableness. On this issue the order must be reversed and the cause remanded to the judge for the taking of further evidence.
The judge determined that the appellant had not lived up to the terms of the attempted modification and computed his arrearage at the rate of $100.00 per week for 25 weeks. He allowed the appellant credit for $300.00 rent received by the appellee and $400.00 paid by the appellant leaving an arrearage of $1,800.00. It appears from the record that during the 25-month period considered by the judge the appellee received $450.00 rental from Mr. L’Orange. In February she received a $40.00 payment from a lot leased to her son. The record reflects that she received additional rentals from a second son, but it is unclear whether these rentals were received during the six-month time span. In any event, it is clear that rents during this period exceeded the $300.00 credit reflected in the order. Although the discrepancy appears minimal, it does require clarification. The order is remanded on this issue for that purpose.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickerson v. Dickerson, 395 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…tions of the judgment except the $3,000 attorney fee awarded to appellee. The Circuit Court erred in awarding a fee to appel-lee for her attorney’s services because there was no evidence as to the reasonableness of the fee award. Johnson v. Johnson, 382 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Snider v. Snider, 375 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Therefore, the attorney fee award is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court for the taking of further evidence. Additionally, we provisionally grant the motion of appe…