GUS SPRENG, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDIA SPRENG, ET AL., 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.
Husband appeals a temporary order requiring him to pay Wife's attorney's fees and costs of approximately $44,500 in a family law matter. The trial court awarded the fees based on Wife's financial need and Husband's substantial ability to pay, but failed to make detailed written findings regarding the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended. The appellate court affirmed despite acknowledging the deficient findings, holding the error was not preserved for appeal.
The trial court's award of attorney's fees was affirmed despite deficient factual findings. The order adequately considered Wife's financial circumstances and needs as well as Husband's substantial ability to pay, and any error in failing to make detailed findings regarding the Rowe factors was not preserved for appeal because Husband failed to file a motion for rehearing.
[1] A trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs will be affirmed if the order clearly considered the requesting party's financial circumstances and needs as well as th…
[2] A party must preserve an alleged error regarding the factual findings supporting an attorney's fee award by filing a motion for rehearing.
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 time expended and the hourly rates are reasonable and commensurate with those in the community. Husband has significant assets, culminating in a net worth of $3.2 million as reflected in his financial affidavit, from which Husband has the ability to pay Wife's legal fees”
The trial court's factual findings supporting the attorney's fee award, emphasizing Husband's substantial ability to pay based on his net worth.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and Wife are parties to a family law proceeding. Husband has significant assets with a net worth of $3.2 million and substantial income, while…
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 Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund V. Rowe Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Gus Spreng (“Husband”) appeals a temporary order awarding Claudia Spreng (“Wife”) attorney’s fees and costs.1 Husband claims that the trial court erred in failing to consider Wife’s ability to pay her own legal fees and costs and in failing to set forth the reasonableness of the time expended and the hourly rate used to calculate the fee. We affirm.
Although we do not have a transcript from the hearing, the order under review details the history of the marriage and the present financial circumstances of the parties. Husband has a significant net worth and income stream; Wife does not. The trial court ordered Husband to pay an additional $1,700 per month in temporary alimony. That award is not challenged on appeal. The court also awarded approximately $44,500 in fees and costs, finding:
[T]he time expended and the hourly rates are reasonable and commensurate with those in the community. Husband has significant assets, culminating in a net worth of $3.2 million as reflected in his financial affidavit, from which Husband has the ability to pay Wife’s legal fees, and Husband is ordered to pay said fees to Wife’s attorney within thirty (80) days of this Order.
On appeal, Husband argues that the trial court was required to make written findings of fact as to the reasonable hourly rate and reasonableness of the hours expended, and that its failure to do so was reversible error. Wife concedes that the failure to make such findings was error. Despite that concession, we affirm. The order clearly considered Wife’s financial circumstances and needs as well as Husband’s ability to pay. Although it was deficient in its factual findings with regard to the factors set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), we find that this error was not preserved for appeal because Husband never filed a motion for rehearing. See Anaya v. Anaya, 987 So.2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
AFFIRMED.
PALMER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abdel Oscar Delgado v. Arnei Morejon, 295 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
-
Harris v. Harris (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Harris v. Harris, 241 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Mathieu v. Kris Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Treve Lamar Oats v. State, 987 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)