Wilkins v. Wilkins

• Decision Date: 28 June 1989
• Docket Number: Nos. 87-2631,88-0209,s. 87-2631
• Citation: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1542,546 So.2d 44
• Parties: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1542 Christine WILKINS, Appellant, v. Robert C. WILKINS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 44

546 So.2d 44

14 Fla. L. Weekly 1542

Christine WILKINS, Appellant, v. Robert C. WILKINS, Appellee.

Nos. 87-2631, 88-0209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

June 28, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 1989.

S. Robert Zimmerman, P.A., Pompano Beach, and Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Val L. Osinski of Law Offices of Val L. Osinski, Coral Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and an order awarding costs and attorney's fees, the wife presents eight points for our consideration, none of which demonstrates reversible error. However, the last point, having to do with attorney's fees, justifies comment.

In the final judgment, the trial court effected an equitable distribution of the assets of the parties, awarded the wife permanent and rehabilitative alimony as well as child support, and reserved jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and suit money. The order entered on fees and costs reviewed the awards previously made in the final judgment, the evidence adduced regarding the time spent by counsel, and the hourly rate to be charged, and concluded that a fee of $30,000 would be reasonable. The court then directed the husband to pay $20,000 of that fee to the wife's counsel.

In her brief, the wife contends the failure to award the entire fee against the husband was error because he was in a superior financial position to make the payment. The husband predictably contends the trial court virtually split the assets equally and made its determination that the wife should pay part of her fees in view of her present financial status.

By way of supplemental authority, the wife furnished us with the case of Stewart v. Stewart, 534 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), in which the trial court awarded the wife only a fraction of the attorney's fees and costs she incurred. She appealed and assigned the partial award as error. The trial court found that the wife reasonably expended the sum of $1,170.54 as court costs and expenses, and that her attorney reasonably expended 45.8 hours in that representation at an hourly rate of $75. The judgment then directed the husband to pay one-half of the costs and $1,500 of the attorney's fee. Noting that the judgment was silent with regard to the rationale involved in the determination to award partial attorney's fees and costs, the court stated:

When an order awarding attorney's fees and costs fails to set forth specific findings regarding the appropriateness of the enhancement or reduction of an award pursuant to the requirements set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), the order will be reversed, notwithstanding the existence vel non of competent substantial evidence upon which the trial court could have based its determination. See Foster v. Foster, 528 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); McCann v. McCann, 528 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Shields v. Shields, 502 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Id. at 807-08.

In Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the court also referred to Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), in reversing an order allowing fees against the husband without following the Rowe criteria and making specific findings. Likewise, in Shields v. Shields, 502 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), on the same point, the court said:

Appellant's second argument has merit. Rowe requires the trial court not only to determine the proper amount of attorney's fees by considering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended in the case, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement figures but also to set forth specific findings as to these factors.

Although we find that the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the trial court...