Cudworth v. Trozzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cudworth v. Trozzo

227 So. 3d 778, 2017 WL 4583196

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D17-100

StatusPublished

This text of 227 So. 3d 778 (Cudworth v. Trozzo) 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

Cudworth v. Trozzo, 227 So. 3d 778, 2017 WL 4583196 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Amanda Cudworth challenges. the trial court’s order on motion for sanctions and motion for enforcement that required her to, pay $1,453.82 in un-reimbursed expenses and $220 in .band fees and that awarded Joseph Trozzo attorney’s fees for pursing the enforcement action. We reverse.

The trial court- relied on a spreadsheet entered into evidence by Trozzo when determining the amounts.that Cudworth was required to pay. However, the attached documentation failed to- support the amounts listed in the spreadsheet. More-. over, many of the expenses should -not have been considered because they were incurred prior to Trozzo seeking a child support order. See Cordell v. Cordell, 30 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion for enforcement. We also reverse the award of attorney’s fees as Trozzo should not have prevailed on this motion for enforcement.

We, therefore, REVERSE the order on appeal.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Amanda Cudworth challenges. the trial court’s order on motion for sanctions and motion for enforcement that required her to, pay $1,453.82 in un-reimbursed expenses and $220 in .band fees and that awarded Joseph Trozzo attorney’s fees for pursing the enforcement action. We reverse.

The trial court- relied on a spreadsheet entered into evidence by Trozzo when determining the amounts.that Cudworth was required to pay. However, the attached documentation failed to- support the amounts listed in the spreadsheet. More-. over, many of the expenses should -not have been considered because they were incurred prior to Trozzo seeking a child support order. See Cordell v. Cordell, 30 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion for enforcement. We also reverse the award of attorney’s fees as Trozzo should not have prevailed on this motion for enforcement.

We, therefore, REVERSE the order on appeal.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 So. 3d 778, 2017 WL 4583196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cudworth-v-trozzo-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack