Thoni v. Thoni
| Decision Date | 26 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-492,65-492 |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 420 |
| Parties | Richard Emil THONI, Jr., Appellant, v. Marine Parrish THONI, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
L. J. Cushman and John W. Prunty, Miami, for appellant.
Guilmartin p Bartel, Miami, for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant, defendant-husband below, takes this interlocutory appeal from an order awarding temporary attorney's fees in a divorce proceeding. At the time of the hearing, this suit had been pending for over two years and awards of $1,500.00 and $3,500.00 had been awarded as temporary attorney fees. On February 24, 1965, almost two years since attorney fees were last applied for and granted, the appellee filed her motion for additional temporary attorney fees. This motion came on for hearing on March 9, 1965, at which time the chancellor heard argument of counsel and received three affidavits of local attorneys who were not present in the courtroom. The affidavits stated that a reasonable fee for services of plaintiff's counsel would be $6,000.00, $6,500.00 and $7,000.00. No testimony was offered or taken and the defendant objected to the use of these affidavits. The court specifically deferred ruling on the application for temporary attorney fees, but did allow $1,000.00 costs pending final hearing.
The appellee-wife renewed her application for temporary attorney fees on March 31, 1965, wherein the chancellor awarded her the sum of $2,500.00 as temporary attorney fees without any further hearing and without any additional information. The attorney for appellee-wife showed that one hundred seventy-five hours of time had been spent since the last award and that an additional amount of work would be needed in order to prepare the case for trial. The order of April 7, 1965, entered following the March 31st hearing awarding $2,500.00 as temporary attorney fees, is the subject of this interlocutory appeal.
The order allowing temporary attorney fees provided in part as follows:
'THIS CAUSE having come on before the Court upon the application of plaintiff for temporary attorneys' fees, and the Court having reviewed the affidavits on file herein, to which no opposing affidavits have been filed, having reviewed the file in this cause, having heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon'
* * *
* * *
The sole issue involved herein is the propriety of awarding additional temporary attorney's fees, in a divorce case, based on affidavits and argument of counsel, without the taking of any testimony. Both parties earnestly and vigorously defend their respective position.
The trial court had previously awarded $5,000.00 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Child v. Child
...4 See Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla.1976); Greenberg v. Greenberg, 397 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So.2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Ms. Child's reference to the fact that her financial affidavit was on file is obviously unavailing both because it does not......
-
Hall v. Hall, 66--381
...account in the fixing of a fee. See: Young v. Young, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 470; Lyle v. Lyle, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 256; Thoni v. Thoni, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 420. See also the recent case of Novack v. Novack, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 513, wherein the following is "Lawyers are officers of t......
-
Marriage of Arnold, In re, 75--1172
...Hanzelik v. Hanzelik, Fla.App., 294 So.2d 116. The trial court also erred in requiring proof of attorney fees by affidavit. Thoni v. Thoni, Fla.App., 179 So.2d 420; See also Provus v. Provus, Fla., 44 So.2d 656; Lyle v. Lyle, Fla.App., 167 So.2d 256 and Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla.App., 211 So.2d A......
-
Demaso v. Demaso, 76--690
...adduced on the issue of attorney's fees, thereby precluding James his right to contest Ellen's claim to such fees. See Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So.2d 420 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So.2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Reek v. Reek, 303 So.2d 677 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). The cause is remand......