Young v. Hector

Decision Date13 October 2004
Docket NumberNo. 3D03-1561.,3D03-1561.
Citation884 So.2d 1025
PartiesRobert S. YOUNG, Appellant, v. Alice G. HECTOR, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

884 So.2d 1025

Robert S. YOUNG, Appellant,
v.
Alice G. HECTOR, Appellee

No. 3D03-1561.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 13, 2004.


884 So.2d 1026
Karen J. Haas, Miami, for appellant

Bette Ellen Quiat, and Stephens Lynn & Klein, and Marlene S. Reiss, Miami, for appellee.

Jay M. Levy, for Bette Ellen Quiat.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The former husband, Robert S. Young ("former husband"), seeks review of the trial court's order on appellate costs and attorney's fees. We reverse.

In June of 2003, this Court partially granted certiorari in favor of the former husband, finding the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction in freezing certain trust account proceeds.1 A few months later, this Court granted the former husband's motion for attorney's fees, and remanded to the trial court to fix the amount of the fees.2 Young v. Hector, 851 So.2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The former wife, Alice G. Hector ("former wife"), then filed a petition to withdraw the mandate and challenged the propriety of the award of appellate attorney's fees to the former

884 So.2d 1027
husband. The petition to withdraw was denied.3

Thereafter, the trial court conducted a hearing on the former husband's motion for attorney's fees. The former husband's expert witness testified that the reasonable number of hours expended by the former husband's attorney was 75.3 hours, and that the $300 per hour rate was a reasonable hourly rate. Thus the expert witness opined that the reasonable amount of the fee award would be $22,590.

No expert witness testified on behalf of the former wife. However, notwithstanding the mandate, the former wife's counsel again argued against the former husband's entitlement, raising the same issues argued on appeal and in her petition to withdraw mandate. In apparent agreement with the arguments made by the former wife's counsel, the trial court determined the reasonable hours to be 15 hours (instead of 75.3), and awarded attorney's fees of $4,500 (instead of $22,590). The trial court also awarded expert fees in the amount of $1350 and awarded costs only for the filing fee in the amount of $250.

The former husband then filed the instant "Motion For Review of Order on Appellate Costs and Attorney's Fees", and a "Motion for Attorney's Fees" with this Court. The former husband essentially argues in this proceeding that the trial court was misled into revisiting the attorney's fees entitlement issue, and erred in reducing the reasonable attorney's fees by $18,900 and in awarding only the filing fee for costs. We agree.

We see no reason why the former husband was not awarded the full amount of costs including charges for preparation of the record. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.400. The trial court's order which awarded an unreasonably low amount of attorney's fees and costs, is not supported by the record. See Larsen v. Larsen, 429 So.2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Therefore we remand with instructions to increase the award of appellate attorney's fees to $22,590, and to increase the award of costs to $488.

With regard to the attorney's fees incurred in the instant action, we grant attorney's fees in favor of the former husband and against the former wife, based upon the need to file an appeal made necessary by frivolous claims brought before the trial court. See Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc., 788 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

The former wife's counsel argued to the trial judge that it was improper to grant fees which were clearly proper, and re-argued issues which had already been denied by this Court. By so doing, the trial judge was plainly misdirected and misled. No possible view of the law would sustain the former wife's counsel's arguments which led the trial judge to the incorrect result that the former husband was needlessly forced to appeal.4 See Savage v.

884 So.2d 1028
Macy's East, Inc., 719 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 469 So.2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)

We remind counsel that, especially in the area of family law, great care should be taken to reduce emotional strife and to avoid vexatious and needless litigation. This Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions against parties and their counsel where unnecessary fees are incurred in response...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Randall v. Randall, 3D04-2932.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 14, 2006
    ...financial ability and need or any of the other factors stated in Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997). See Young v. Hector, 884 So.2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ("[T]his Court granted the former husband's motion for attorney's fees, and remanded to the trial court to fix the amount o......
  • Boule v. State, 2D04-275.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 13, 2004
    ...of a sentence or the amount of time the defendant would serve."); Iaconetti, 869 So.2d at 699 (same). Although the State argued that 884 So.2d 1025 the plea colloquy refuted Boule's claim, the record before us does not support that Boule acknowledged at the plea hearing that no one had made......
1 books & journal articles
  • Attorneys' fees and costs
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...the party, based upon the need to file an appeal made necessary by frivolous claims brought before the trial court. [ Young v. Hector, 884 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (former wife’s counsel argued to trial court that it was improper to grant fees which were clearly proper, and reargued i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT