Case Law update January 11, 2013

CASE LAW UPDATES AS REPORTED THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2012
Just one case to report on this week.
ATTORNEY FEES:
In the case of Arena v. Arena, 38FLW D92b Opinion filed 1/4/13, Our Second DCA found that neither the record nor the trial court’s Order contained sufficient factual findings to support an award of partial attorney fees. The facts: The Wife appealed both the type of alimony awarded-she requested permanent periodic and was awarded bridge-the gap- and the Order requiring her Husband to pay only 60% of her attorney fees. The alimony award was affirmed without comment. The award of attorney fees was reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The court noted that, “ . . . While exceedingly broad and diverse, factors considered in attorney’s fees determinations are not without limitations.” Noting it . . “can be an abuse of discretion to grant only a partial attorney’s fee award based solely on disparity of income.” The Final Judgment left each party with $296,000 in assets, which included a substantial portion in cash from the sale of the marital home. The Former Husband had annual gross income of 152K. The Former Wife had imputed income in the range of 70-80K annually. Six months after the FJ was entered, a Final hearing on attorney fees took place. The Former Wife was still unemployed at that point and had “limited assets remaining.” The trial court found she had a need for assistance in paying her attorney fees. The court also noted the obvious, the Former Husband has income substantially greater than Former Wife’s. Without any other elaboration the trial court ordered the Former Husband to pay 60% of the Wife’s $45K+ fees and costs making the Former Wife responsible for the 40% remaining. While the trial court may have had a rationale in mind for its award, the record and the order did not disclose what it was and therefore, the DCA found error because nothing in the record supported or justified the specific amount awarded either orally in the record or in the Order. Therefore the 60% appeared arbitrary. Reversed and remanded with directions to reconsider fees and make findings of fact sufficient to permit review of the decision.