LOULOU AMIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTHER GALLANT AND MURRAY KALISH, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's post-dissolution order on all issues except the crediting of the former husband's equity in the marital residence against the former wife's attorney's fees award, which was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to establish the specific amount of fees owed.
A trial court cannot credit a former husband's equity in the marital residence against a former wife's attorney's fees award without evidence establishing the specific amount of attorney's fees to which the former wife is entitled.
[1] A trial court must establish the specific amount of attorney's fees owed through evidence of hours reasonably spent, hourly rates, and other relevant factors before credi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Evidence of the number of hours reasonably spent, the reasonable hourly rate, and any other relevant factors is necessary to ensure that neither party is short-changed or receives a windfall.”
Court explaining the evidentiary requirements for establishing attorney's fees awards.
The trial court and general master resolved twelve post-dissolution issues following a divorce, including the disposition of the marital residence and…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
BLANC, Associate J.
The appellant/former wife appeals the trial court’s order of August 27, 1998, which ratifies and approves the July 16, 1998, report of the General Master resolving twelve separate post-dissolution issues. We affirm on all issues but one.
We understand the efforts of the trial court and the general master to fashion a remedy which would appropriately resolve the numerous post-dissolution motions in a manner that would bring closure to the parties. However, we must find that it was error to credit the former husband’s equity in the marital residence subsequently conveyed to the former wife against the former wife’s award of attorney’s fees without evidence establishing the specific amount of attorney’s fees to which the former wife was entitled. The only evidence presented on this issue was the testimony of the former wife that she believed that she owed her attorney $16,-000.00. Evidence of the number of hours reasonably spent, the reasonable hourly rate, and any other relevant factors is necessary to ensure that neither party is short-changed or receives a windfall. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). We, therefore, remand for an evidentiary hearing to establish the specific amount of attorney’s fees to which the appellant/former wife is entitled.
KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.