Newman v. Newman

121 So. 3d 661, 2013 WL 5269547, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 18, 2013
DocketNo. 1D12-5998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 121 So. 3d 661 (Newman v. Newman) 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
Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 2013 WL 5269547, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises four issues on appeal, only one [662]*662of which warrants reversal and remand. Although we reject Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in determining that Appellee, the former wife, was entitled to attorney’s fees, we agree that the trial court, which found that the hourly rate and number of hours claimed by Ap-pellee’s attorney were reasonable, erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving Appellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting in part that absent a stipulation, a party seeking attorney’s fees must prove with evidence at an evidentiary hearing the reasonableness of the fee sought); Duncan v. Duncan, 642 So.2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that the trial court erroneously awarded temporary attorney’s fees and costs without determining that the amounts sought were reasonable and without giving the appellant an opportunity to challenge their reasonableness); Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So.2d 357, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (noting that a trial court must give notice to a party against whom an attorney’s fee award will be made and afford an opportunity to review and rebut the reasonableness of any amount claimed).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

FELIX SOTO v. CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE PHASE I I I
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
Kristopher A. Joyner v. Christy J. Worley
264 So. 3d 260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Sands v. Deutsche Bank
251 So. 3d 359 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Wagner v. Bank of America, N.A.
143 So. 3d 447 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 So. 3d 661, 2013 WL 5269547, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-newman-fladistctapp-2013.