Jose Breton v. Maria Raud

Florida Third District Court of Appeal · September 17, 2025 · No. 3D24-0890

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a non-final order awarding a mother temporary attorney’s fees and forensic-accountant fees in a post-judgment paternity proceeding. The court affirmed the factual findings and the award of prospective fees sought in the motion, but held that due process barred awards for relief and amounts not requested or noticed for hearing, including fees related to contempt proceedings. The order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Writing for the Court
SCALES, C.J.; Chief Judge SCALES; Judge FERNANDEZ; Judge LINDSEY
Jurisdiction
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Decision date
September 17, 2025
Docket number
3D24-0890
Procedural posture
Appeal from a nonfinal family-law order awarding temporary attorney's fees, costs, and forensic-accountant fees in a post-judgment paternity proceeding.
Standard of review
Factual findings are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence; an award of temporary fees in a paternity action is reviewed for abuse of discretion; due-process issues are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Jose Breton v. Maria Raud
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

family law procedurechild supportattorney feesdue processappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedureappellate procedureconstitutional lawremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings concerning the relief sought in Raud's motion for temporary fees and costs.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding temporary prospective attorney's fees and forensic-accountant fees requested in the motion.
  3. Whether due process permitted the trial court to adjudicate and award amounts, including past-incurred and contempt-proceeding fees, that were not requested in the motion and were not identified in the hearing notice.

Holdings

  1. The trial court's factual findings related to the relief sought in the motion were supported by competent, substantial evidence and were affirmed.
  2. Raud was entitled to the temporary, prospective attorney's fees and forensic-accountant fees sought in the motion, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding that relief.
  3. A trial court violates due process when it adjudicates issues and awards relief not requested in the operative pleading or motion, particularly where the opposing party lacked notice that those matters would be decided at the hearing.

Key quotations

Entertaining claims and awarding relief not sought in the Motion constituted a due process violation. (6)
We are thus compelled to reverse those portions of the Order awarding any sums other than the $25,000 in temporary attorney’s fees and $5,000 in prospective forensic accountant fees that were sought in the Motion and noticed for the April 10th hearing. (7)

Factual background

The parties had a mediated parenting settlement agreement governing responsibilities for their minor child, and Breton later petitioned to modify parental responsibility, timesharing, and child support. Raud moved for $25,000 in temporary attorney's fees and $5,000 as an initial forensic-accountant deposit to prepare for mediation and upcoming hearings. At the noticed hearing, however, Raud sought past-incurred fees and costs, including fees connected to separate contempt proceedings, and the trial court awarded those amounts in addition to prospective fees.

Procedural history

The trial court entered an amended order granting Maria Raud temporary attorney's fees and forensic-accountant fees after a hearing noticed only on Raud's motion for temporary fees and costs. The order awarded both prospective fees sought in the motion and substantial past-incurred fees, including fees associated with separate contempt proceedings. Jose Breton appealed the nonfinal order, arguing that the trial court awarded relief not requested in the motion and that the order lacked sufficient findings. The appellate court affirmed the findings and prospective relief sought in the motion, reversed the portions awarding unrequested relief, and remanded.

Remand instructions

Reverse the portions of the amended order awarding sums other than the $25,000 in temporary attorney's fees and the $5,000 in prospective forensic-accountant fees sought in the motion and noticed for the hearing. Remand for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…