Davies v. Davies

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davies v. Davies

824 So. 2d 326, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12365, 2002 WL 1971916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 2002

DocketNos. 1D01-5075, 1D02-240

StatusPublished

This text of 824 So. 2d 326 (Davies v. Davies) 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

Davies v. Davies, 824 So. 2d 326, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12365, 2002 WL 1971916 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal from post-dissolution orders entered by the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fee entitlement as a sanction in the contempt proceeding. See, e.g., Poe v. Poe, 811 So.2d 789, 789-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Becker v. Becker, 778 So.2d 438, 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Worthington v. Harty, 677 So.2d 1371, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So.2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We find, however, that appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the amount of the fee awarded. See, e.g., Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So.2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So.2d 357, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the fee order is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings. [327]*327In all other respects, the orders on appeal are AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal from post-dissolution orders entered by the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fee entitlement as a sanction in the contempt proceeding. See, e.g., Poe v. Poe, 811 So.2d 789, 789-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Becker v. Becker, 778 So.2d 438, 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Worthington v. Harty, 677 So.2d 1371, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So.2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We find, however, that appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the amount of the fee awarded. See, e.g., Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So.2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So.2d 357, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the fee order is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings. [327]*327In all other respects, the orders on appeal are AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 326, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12365, 2002 WL 1971916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-davies-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack