Conroy v. Conroy, 78-762
| Decision Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-762,78-762 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 1188 |
| Parties | Martha S. CONROY, Appellant, v. Andrew Jackson CONROY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appellant.
R. Philip Haddock, Lakeland, for appellee.
The wife challenges those parts of the trial court's judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the court dealt with alimony, disposition of property, and the award of attorney's fees. After careful review, we have concluded the court erred only in its award of attorney's fees.
In her counterpetition for dissolution, the wife alleged that she needed funds to employ an attorney and requested that the court order her husband to pay her lawyer a reasonable fee. At the final hearing, her counsel presented an expert witness who testified that a reasonable fee would be not less than $15,000 nor more than $20,000. The husband did not contest the reasonableness of this amount but argued that he should not be responsible for his wife's fees. The court agreed with the husband's position, and ordered each party to pay his own attorney's fees. Further, in Paragraph 4 of the judgment the court ordered:
(T)hat a fair and reasonable fee to the attorneys for the Wife in this cause will be the sum of Sixteen Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($16,000.00) for which, pursuant to this Order, the Wife will be financially responsible for payment.
It is with this provision that we find fault.
The rule in this state is quite clear that in dissolution proceedings, as in other actions, the trial court has no authority, absent a claim for a charging lien, to enter an order or judgment requiring a party to pay his or her attorney for representation during that proceeding. Cristiani v. Cristiani, 114 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Chaachou v. Chaachou, 122 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The reasons for this rule become obvious in a case such as the present one where a litigant finds herself in an adversarial relationship with her own counsel concerning his fee and thus is deprived of her right to due process in the determination of that fee. Consequently, there having been no claim for a charging lien at the time the court entered its judgment, the trial court was without authority to order the wife to pay her attorney a $16,000 fee. 1
We vacate Paragraph 4 of the court's judgment which we quoted above. We affirm the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dralus v. Dralus
...lien in the dissolution case. See Lochner v. Monaco, Cardillo & Keith, P.A., 551 So.2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Conroy v. Conroy, 370 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 765 (Fla.1980). 6 Mr. Coleman seeks to impose a charging lien on the wife's remaining assets for the un......
-
Conroy v. Conroy
...a claim for a charging lien, to require a party to pay his or her attorney for representation during that proceeding. Conroy v. Conroy, 370 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Our opinion included a footnote which observed that subsequent to the entry of the final judgment, Mrs. Conroy's counsel......
-
Lochner v. Monaco, Cardillo & Keith, P.A.
...court has no authority to enter an order or judgment requiring a party to pay for his representation in a proceeding. Conroy v. Conroy, 370 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. den., 381 So.2d 765 (Fla.1980). Cristiani v. Cristiani, 114 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); see also Behar v. Root, ......
-
Smith v. Daniel Mones, P.A., 84-1324
...& Zavertnik v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983); see Winn v. City of Cocoa, 75 So.2d 909, 912 (Fla.1954); Conroy v. Conroy, 370 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 765 (Fla.1980). Finally, a retaining lien could not be imposed on any part of the $22,000 trust ......