RENA AMRO
v.
RONALD GAZZE
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.
Former Wife appeals a trial court's enforcement order of a marital settlement agreement, challenging awards of costs, rent, repair damages, and attorney's fees to Former Husband. The appellate court affirmed the awards of costs, rent, and repair damages, but reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award due to insufficient factual findings regarding hourly rate and hours expended.
The trial court's awards of costs, rent, and repair damages are affirmed. However, the attorney's fees award is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make required factual findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate and reasonable number of hours expended, requiring the trial court to redetermine and articulate these findings on remand.
[1] In family law proceedings, a trial court awarding attorney's fees pursuant to a marital settlement agreement provision must make and articulate specific factual findings…
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 intelligenceThe parties had a final judgment dissolving their marriage with an approved marital settlement agreement. Former Husband moved to enforce the final ju…
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 Award Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, J.
The appellant (“Former Wife”) appeals final orders entered after the appellee (“Former Husband”) moved to enforce the final judgment dissolving their marriage and approving a marital settlement agreement between the parties. Former Wife raises four issues on appeal, contending the trial court erred by (1) awarding Former Husband costs with no basis identified for the award or explanation of the costs awarded; (2) awarding Former Husband six months of rent; (3) failing to articulate sufficient facts to award monetary damages to Former Husband for repairs to the former marital residence; and (4) awarding attorney’s fees to Former Husband without identifying the basis for the award and articulating a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable amount of time expended. We affirm the trial court without discussion on the first three issues. We reverse and remand as to the issue pertaining to the attorney’s fee award.
We are satisfied, based on our review of the record, that the trial court awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of the marital settlement agreement, which provided that a defaulting party was liable for attorney’s fees. However, where a trial court fails to articulate the required findings as to a reasonable hourly rate or a reasonable number of hours expended, the award should be reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to determine and articulate the required findings. See Trainor v. Trainor, 199 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Hay v. Hay, 944 So. 2d 1043, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Because the trial court failed to make factual findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate or the reasonable number of hours expended for the attorney’s fees awarded, we reverse the award and remand the case for the trial court to make the appropriate findings and determination as to the amount of attorney’s fees to award Former Husband. If needed, the trial court is permitted to conduct further proceedings as to the amount of fees, but not entitlement.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dobbins v. State, 944 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Trainor v. Trainor, 199 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- HAY v. HAY, 944 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)