Seaton v. Seaton

563 So. 2d 837, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5164, 1990 WL 98544
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 18, 1990·No. No. 89-0502·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge.

We have reviewed each of the issues presented by the former husband in his attack upon the trial court’s resolution of this matter and have found no reversible error save as to the award of the former wife’s attorney’s fee. In addition to aspects of the fee evidence being inadequate to permit the fair assessment of a reasonable fee, the final judgment fails to disclose the specific findings essential to compliance with Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

Accordingly, this matter is remanded for a redetermination of the wife’s attorney’s fee and the entry of an order complying [838] with Rowe. Calamore v. Calamore, 555 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Seaton v. Seaton, 563 So. 2d 837, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5164, 1990 WL 98544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

563 So. 2d 837 (Seaton v. Seaton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carlson v. Carlson
639 So. 2d 1094 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Piazza v. Piazza
568 So. 2d 989 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)