Konicki v. Konicki

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Konicki v. Konicki

693 So. 2d 97, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4904, 1997 WL 228677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1997

DocketNo. 96-00840

StatusPublished

This text of 693 So. 2d 97 (Konicki v. Konicki) 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

Konicki v. Konicki, 693 So. 2d 97, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4904, 1997 WL 228677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Vincent Konieki appeals a final judgment of dissolution, contending the trial court abused its discretion in awarding child support and attorneys’ fees to Susan Kelly Konieki. He also maintains that the trial court erred when it reserved jurisdiction to award future medical expenses to Ms. Kon-icki. Ms. Konieki cross-appeals the attorneys’ fee award, contending that she was entitled to payment of all of her fees, rather than the eighty percent awarded by the trial court.

The trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Ms. Konieki without conducting a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees incurred and owed. See Safford v. Safford, 656 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that award and remand for a hearing on the issue of the attorneys’ fees. Although we find no abuse of discretion in this limited record concerning the trial court’s decision to award only eighty percent of the fees incurred, the trial court may adjust the percentage on remand if the evidence so warrants.

Finally, the trial court should have resolved the issue of future medical expenses prior to entering a final judgment. It is not appropriate to reserve isolated economic issues for resolution at a date after entry of a final judgment merely because the evidence at the final hearing is incomplete. Generally, if the court needs additional evidence to resolve such an issue, the final judgment should be deferred until the evidence has been presented. In light of the circumstances in this case, we authorize the trial court to determine whether Ms. Konieki is entitled to contribution from Mr. Konieki for future medical expenses. The trial court may require further medical testing and diagnosis to reach this determination.

[98]*98Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

THREAJDGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark Vincent Konieki appeals a final judgment of dissolution, contending the trial court abused its discretion in awarding child support and attorneys’ fees to Susan Kelly Konieki. He also maintains that the trial court erred when it reserved jurisdiction to award future medical expenses to Ms. Kon-icki. Ms. Konieki cross-appeals the attorneys’ fee award, contending that she was entitled to payment of all of her fees, rather than the eighty percent awarded by the trial court.

The trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Ms. Konieki without conducting a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees incurred and owed. See Safford v. Safford, 656 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that award and remand for a hearing on the issue of the attorneys’ fees. Although we find no abuse of discretion in this limited record concerning the trial court’s decision to award only eighty percent of the fees incurred, the trial court may adjust the percentage on remand if the evidence so warrants.

Finally, the trial court should have resolved the issue of future medical expenses prior to entering a final judgment. It is not appropriate to reserve isolated economic issues for resolution at a date after entry of a final judgment merely because the evidence at the final hearing is incomplete. Generally, if the court needs additional evidence to resolve such an issue, the final judgment should be deferred until the evidence has been presented. In light of the circumstances in this case, we authorize the trial court to determine whether Ms. Konieki is entitled to contribution from Mr. Konieki for future medical expenses. The trial court may require further medical testing and diagnosis to reach this determination.

[98]*98Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

THREAJDGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 97, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4904, 1997 WL 228677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konicki-v-konicki-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack