Barbarite v. Barbarite

464 So. 2d 618, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 509, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 27, 1985
DocketNo. 84-1436
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 618 (Barbarite v. Barbarite) 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
Barbarite v. Barbarite, 464 So. 2d 618, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 509, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

Victoria Barbarite appeals an order entered upon a motion to require the former husband to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm that aspect of the order pertaining to costs.

Appellant’s attorneys sought a fee of $17,500. In the order, which contained in-terlineations presumably inserted by the trial judge, it is provided:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Husband/Respondent, ROBERT BAR-BARITE, be and hereby is ordered to pay to the Wife’s attorneys, McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P.A., the sum of $7,500.00, representing a reasonable portion of attorneys fees as determined by the evidence.

While the consequences of this order are clear, the basis for it is not. We cannot determine, either from the record or the face of the order, whether there was a determination of the amount of a reasonable attorneys’ fee and, if so, the amount of that fee. Where one spouse requests that the other spouse be compelled to pay attorneys’ fees and the facts justify granting such a request in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon that trial court to determine the amount of a reasonable attorneys’ fee using well-established criteria and thereafter, based upon the evidence and applicable law, to determine how much of that fee the other spouse should be required to pay. The within order is ambiguous and therefore deficient in that respect.

We reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand for further appropriate proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bachman v. Bachman
566 So. 2d 19 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Dean v. Dean
526 So. 2d 746 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Bernstein v. Bernstein
524 So. 2d 472 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 So. 2d 618, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 509, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbarite-v-barbarite-fladistctapp-1985.