Berg-Perlow v. Perlow

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berg-Perlow v. Perlow

38 So. 3d 891, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10852, 2010 WL 2925401

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 2010

Docket4D09-876, 4D10-1157, 4D10-1892

StatusPublished

This text of 38 So. 3d 891 (Berg-Perlow v. Perlow) 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

Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 38 So. 3d 891, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10852, 2010 WL 2925401 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW

GROSS, C.J.

Appellant challenges an award of temporary attorney’s fees to appellee to prosecute an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution. We sua sponte consolidate this case with the appeal of the final judgment, case numbers 4D10-1157 and 4D10-1892 (consolidated), and treat this case as a motion for review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(3). Because competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling, the motion for review is denied.

Like temporary relief awards, temporary appellate fee awards “ ‘are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion, which appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere with except under the most compelling of circumstances.’” Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial judge rejected appellee’s estimate that it would take 200 hours to prepare a brief in this case; he wrote that such an award “seems high,” because there “is one big issue in the case and the best appellate lawyers focus on that issue and write five page briefs.” Taking into consideration the testimony and the trial judge’s familiarity with the history of this case, we do not find that the circuit court abused its discretion, that “ ‘[ ... ] no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’ ” Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (quoting Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). The trial court should entertain no further requests for appellate attorney’s fees unless this court grants a motion for additional appellate attorney’s fees.

WARNER, J., and FISHMAN, JANE D., Associate Judge, concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW

GROSS, C.J.

Appellant challenges an award of temporary attorney’s fees to appellee to prosecute an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution. We sua sponte consolidate this case with the appeal of the final judgment, case numbers 4D10-1157 and 4D10-1892 (consolidated), and treat this case as a motion for review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(3). Because competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling, the motion for review is denied.

Like temporary relief awards, temporary appellate fee awards “ ‘are among the areas where trial judges have the very broadest discretion, which appellate courts are very reluctant to interfere with except under the most compelling of circumstances.’” Pedraja v. Garcia, 667 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial judge rejected appellee’s estimate that it would take 200 hours to prepare a brief in this case; he wrote that such an award “seems high,” because there “is one big issue in the case and the best appellate lawyers focus on that issue and write five page briefs.” Taking into consideration the testimony and the trial judge’s familiarity with the history of this case, we do not find that the circuit court abused its discretion, that “ ‘[ ... ] no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.’ ” Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (quoting Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). The trial court should entertain no further requests for appellate attorney’s fees unless this court grants a motion for additional appellate attorney’s fees.

WARNER, J., and FISHMAN, JANE D., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 3d 891, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10852, 2010 WL 2925401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-perlow-v-perlow-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack