PAMELA WISHOD OSHEROW, APPELLANT,
v.
SHEPARD D. OSHEROW, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's limited award of attorney's fees in a domestic case, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees for a Rule 1.540 motion and reducing fees for multiple attorneys where necessity was not established.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees for a Rule 1.540 motion when the moving party was not truthful with counsel, and in reducing fees for multiple attorneys absent a showing of necessity for more than one lawyer.
[1] A trial court may deny attorney's fees for a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 when the moving party was not truthful with counsel regarding factual matt…
[2] A trial court should not assess full attorney's fees for multiple lawyers unless the court concludes that necessity exists for more than one lawyer on the case.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a domestic litigation, the wife sought to recover attorney's fees incurred in bringing a Rule 1.540 motion and in defending against the husband's p…
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 Petition For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
We affirm the limited award of attorney’s fees in this domestic litigation. The wife sought to recover her fees incurred in bringing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Considering the merits of the parties’ respective positions on the rule 1.540 motion, including the trial court’s conclusion that the wife did not tell her attorneys the truth about the factual matters pertaining to the motion, the denial of fees was not an abuse of discretion. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997).
We likewise conclude that no abuse of discretion is shown in the award of only a fraction of the fees charged for the additional attorney employed by the wife to defend against husband’s petition for modification. We have held before that a court should not assess fees for multiple lawyers used by a requesting party unless the trial court concludes that there is a need for more than one lawyer on the case. See Tomaino v. Tomaino, 629 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court did award fees based on the work of several attorneys. The court simply did not award the entire amount of fees requested. Having conducted the trial and reviewed all of the pleadings and records, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reduc ing the amount of fees requested by the wife.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grover v. Grover, 59 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…rate’s recommendation to reduce Wilson’s fees. It also agreed with the denial of fees for Robinson, but articulated a different rationale: Former Wife did not present any evidence showing a need for more than one attorney, citing Osherow v. Osherow, 785 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We recognize that Osherow, 785 So. 2d at 743, states “a court should not assess fees for multiple lawyers used by a requesting party unless the trial court concludes that there is a need for more than one lawyer on the case.” T…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Tomaino v. Tomaino, 629 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)