R.M.F. v. D.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.M.F. v. D.C.

55 So. 3d 684

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 2011

DocketNo. 2D10-250

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 So. 3d 684 (R.M.F. v. D.C.) 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

R.M.F. v. D.C., 55 So. 3d 684 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

R.M.F., the Father, seeks review of a final judgment of paternity and challenges the award of attorney’s fees to D.C., the Mother, and the visitation schedule set forth therein. The lack of a trial transcript precludes this court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Mother’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and the visitation schedule. See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). However, we reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees because the final judgment does not contain any findings justifying the amount of the award. See Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So.3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

R.M.F., the Father, seeks review of a final judgment of paternity and challenges the award of attorney’s fees to D.C., the Mother, and the visitation schedule set forth therein. The lack of a trial transcript precludes this court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Mother’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and the visitation schedule. See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). However, we reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees because the final judgment does not contain any findings justifying the amount of the award. See Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So.3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 So. 3d 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rmf-v-dc-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack