Rogoff v. Rogoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rogoff v. Rogoff

758 So. 2d 712, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2728, 2000 WL 276076

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2000

DocketNos. 4D99-2054, 4D99-2445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 758 So. 2d 712 (Rogoff v. Rogoff) 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

Rogoff v. Rogoff, 758 So. 2d 712, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2728, 2000 WL 276076 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

In this consolidated appeal, former husband, Robert Rogoff, appeals an order finding him in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a purge amount of $38,-575 after he unilaterally made set-offs against the money he was to transfer to the former wife pursuant to their marital property settlement agreement. We reverse the contempt order because the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, is not so clear and precise as to support a finding that former husband’s actions in making the set-offs constituted a willful and wanton violation of an express term of the agreement. See Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Implicit in the trial court’s order, however, is the finding that the husband has failed to fully comply with the settlement agreement and that some amount is still owed to the wife. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a judgment, or other order, in whatever amount the trial court determines to be due, enforcing the property settlement agreement. The trial court, in its discretion, may take additional evidence or enter the judgment on the basis of the present record.

Former wife, Charlene Rogoff, appeals the order denying her motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm because former wife did not meet her burden to prove the reasonableness of the time expended on the case and the reasonable market rate for lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation in the community for eases of this nature. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.1985).

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED.

FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

In this consolidated appeal, former husband, Robert Rogoff, appeals an order finding him in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a purge amount of $38,-575 after he unilaterally made set-offs against the money he was to transfer to the former wife pursuant to their marital property settlement agreement. We reverse the contempt order because the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, is not so clear and precise as to support a finding that former husband’s actions in making the set-offs constituted a willful and wanton violation of an express term of the agreement. See Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Implicit in the trial court’s order, however, is the finding that the husband has failed to fully comply with the settlement agreement and that some amount is still owed to the wife. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a judgment, or other order, in whatever amount the trial court determines to be due, enforcing the property settlement agreement. The trial court, in its discretion, may take additional evidence or enter the judgment on the basis of the present record.

Former wife, Charlene Rogoff, appeals the order denying her motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm because former wife did not meet her burden to prove the reasonableness of the time expended on the case and the reasonable market rate for lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation in the community for eases of this nature. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.1985).

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED.

FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 So. 2d 712, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2728, 2000 WL 276076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogoff-v-rogoff-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack