JANETA FITTERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MONAS F. FITTERMAN A/K/A WAYNE FITTERMAN, 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 a six-month marriage dissolution case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an award of temporary attorney's fees as an abuse of discretion and remanded for reconsideration of both attorney's fees and temporary alimony in light of relevant statutory factors.
The award of temporary attorney's fees of $4,000 constituted an abuse of discretion and is reversed and remanded. The temporary alimony award must also be reconsidered by the trial court with proper application of the Belcher factors and adequate findings of fact.
[1] Temporary alimony awards must consider the parties' standard of living during the marriage, the wife's needs, and the husband's ability to pay.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding inadequate temporary attorney's fees when the award is not supported by the uncontradicted evidence of reasonable fees.
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 factors to be used in determining the appropriate award of temporary alimony are the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage together with the wife's needs and husband's ability to pay.”
Establishes the three-factor Belcher test that must be applied to temporary alimony awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJaneta and Monas Fitterman had been married for six months but lived together periodically over three years. The husband is wealthy with significant a…
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 Needs Of Spouse cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is granted and our opinion of June 11, 1986 is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place.
This is a timely appeal from two non-final orders entered by the lower court restoring appellee/husband as the occupant of the marital home and awarding appellant/wife temporary support, attorney’s fees, and suit money.
These parties had been married for only six months, though they had lived together periodically over a period of three years. The husband is wealthy by most standards and the wife has neither assets nor income. He was allowed to remain in the marital home upon finding comparable housing for the wife, and was also required to pay her $3,000 a month for rent and temporary support. The wife contends the amount of temporary alimony is inadequate particularly in view of the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage. The factors to be used in determining the appropriate award of temporary alimony are the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage together with the wife’s needs and husband’s ability to pay. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972). We are unable to determine whether the trial court considered these factors in arriving at the award of temporary alimony. Thus further consideration thereof appears indicated.
The wife also complains that the court erred in its award of temporary attorney’s fees of $4,000 and $2,000 costs. The uncontradicted evidence in the record is that a reasonable temporary fee would be $16,000, considering a rate of $200 per hour; that thirty hours had already been consumed by counsel; and the witness opined another fifty hours would probably be required to conclude the case. The expert also testified that discovery of the husband’s estate would be difficult and a C.P.A. testified it would take forty to seventy-five hours of his time to properly demonstrate the husband’s financial picture.
While the court is not bound by expert testimony regarding attorney’s fees, neither can it be totally ignored. Thus, on the record, we hold that the allowance of only $4,000 temporary fees was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the order awarding attorney’s fees is reversed and remanded for further consideration. On remand the trial court is also requested to further consider the evidence in the light of the factors mentioned in Belcher and make sufficient findings of fact to support his conclusion regarding the appropriate award of temporary alimony.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dwyn Daniels Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…itself. Comparing the husband’s monthly income of well over $15,000 with his wife’s monthly income of $83, we do not see how this particular allowance comes even close to equalizing the parties’ access to legal services. See Fitterman v. Fitterman, 502 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (abuse of discretion to award $4,000 in temporary fees where uncontradicted evidence in record indicated $16,000 as a reasonable fee). There is still another ingredient in this stew. In Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Row…
-
Wenzel v. Wenzel, 512 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…temporary alimony is proper, the court must be governed by the wife’s needs as established by the parties’ standard of living during the marriage and the husband’s ability to pay. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972); Fitterman v. Fitterman, 502 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). [*276] The record of the hearing for temporary relief in the instant case reveals that the amount of temporary alimony awarded by the trial court not only exceeds the amount…
Authorities Cited
- Annabelle G. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972)
- Janeta Fitterman v. Monas F. Fitterman, 481 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)