Arthur Collin Cherry v. Katherine Hiett Viker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arthur Collin Cherry v. Katherine Hiett Viker

197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 2016

Docket16-0689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 1292 (Arthur Collin Cherry v. Katherine Hiett Viker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Collin Cherry v. Katherine Hiett Viker, 197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a non-final order awarding temporary attorney’s fees and suit money to Appellee in a child support and custody case, Appellant contends that the trial court’s order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We agree to the extent that the trial court’s findings regarding the parties’ financial resources are not supported by the evidence because only argument of counsel — and no evidence — was presented at the hearing below. Thus, the court could not have properly determined the need of the party seeking fees or the ability of the other party to pay.. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See Baker v. Baker, 35 So.3d 76, 77-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding an award of temporary fees where party seeking fee award failed to produce evidence to support the award because “a temporary award does not create vested rights”). By this disposition, we expressly decline to reach the issue of whether the record supports the amounts of suit money and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a non-final order awarding temporary attorney’s fees and suit money to Appellee in a child support and custody case, Appellant contends that the trial court’s order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We agree to the extent that the trial court’s findings regarding the parties’ financial resources are not supported by the evidence because only argument of counsel — and no evidence — was presented at the hearing below. Thus, the court could not have properly determined the need of the party seeking fees or the ability of the other party to pay.. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the fees.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See Baker v. Baker, 35 So.3d 76, 77-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding an award of temporary fees where party seeking fee award failed to produce evidence to support the award because “a temporary award does not create vested rights”). By this disposition, we expressly decline to reach the issue of whether the record supports the amounts of suit money and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-collin-cherry-v-katherine-hiett-viker-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack