Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a former husband’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in a family-law proceeding. The court held that although the order referenced the husband’s potential summer income, the trial judge expressly disclaimed reliance on that factor, and the remaining findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on imputed potential summer income in denying the former husband's motion for attorney's fees and costs.
- Whether the order denying attorney's fees and costs was supported by competent, substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Holdings
- The trial court's statement that the former husband could obtain additional summer employment was obiter dictum because the trial court expressly disclaimed reliance on it in deciding the fee motion; therefore, the statement did not provide a basis for reversal.
- The order denying the former husband's motion for attorney's fees and costs was supported by competent, substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
Key quotations
“must look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay” (at 2)
Factual background
Remy E. Gutierrez, a former husband and schoolteacher, sought attorney's fees and costs from Hilda Gutierrez, his former wife. In denying the motion, the trial court stated that he had the ability to obtain additional employment during the summer but expressly disclaimed reliance on that observation in adjudicating the motion. The appellate court concluded that the remaining findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Procedural history
The former husband moved for attorney's fees and costs in the underlying dissolution proceeding. The circuit court denied the motion and stated that he had the ability to obtain additional summer employment, while expressly disclaiming reliance on that factor in deciding the motion. He appealed the non-final order, and the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.