LAW.coLAW.co

MARCELLUS v. PETERSON (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.2021-10-27No. No. 4D20-1671

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the husband was entitled to pay his ex-wife's attorneys fees due to bad faith conduct, but reversed the fee amount and remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make specific findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate and number of hours expended.

A husband appealed a trial court's award of nearly $282,000 in attorneys fees to his ex-wife following the reopening of their divorce case due to his noncompliance with the original judgment. The trial court found the husband engaged in bad faith conduct and awarded the fees based on findings adopted from a separate disciplinary proceeding, but did not conduct a hearing to determine what hourly rate and number of hours were reasonable for the work performed.

The appellate court agreed with the husband that the trial court's process was deficient. While the court confirmed that the husband's bad faith conduct justified an award of attorneys fees to his ex-wife, it found that awarding a specific dollar amount without an evidentiary hearing and without explicit findings about reasonable rates and hours violated established procedural requirements. The court therefore sent the case back to the trial court for a proper hearing and detailed findings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether attorneys fees may be awarded as sanctions for bad faith litigation conduct without an evidentiary hearing
  • Whether a trial court must make specific findings as to reasonable hourly rates and hours worked when awarding attorneys fees
  • Whether adopting findings from a separate disciplinary proceeding satisfies the requirement for detailed factual findings in a fee award

Procedural posture

The husband appealed a final judgment awarding attorneys fees to the wife, and the trial court denied his motion for rehearing.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

In this post-dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals a final judgment awarding the wife $282,105.34 in attorneys fees. We affirm the trial courts determination of entitlement to attorneys fees, but reverse as to the amount because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and make specific findings as to the hourly rate and number of hours reasonably expended.

The parties divorced in 2010. In 2013, the trial court granted the wifes petition to reopen the case due to the husbands failure to comply with the terms of the final judgment. As a result of the husbands conduct in the proceedings, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against the husband, and the Florida Supreme Court suspended the husband from practicing law for eighteen months. The Fla. Bar v. Marcellus, 249 So. 3d 538, 547 (Fla. 2018).

The wife moved for attorneys fees, stating she had incurred $259,222.92 in attorneys fees and costs because of the husbands bad faith actions. After a motion calendar hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding the wife $259,222.92 in attorneys fees pursuant to the inequitable conduct doctrine, as well as $22,882.42 in prejudgment interest for a total award of $282,105.34. The trial court adopted the findings made by the supreme court and referee in the disciplinary proceeding. The order did not contain any findings concerning a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours.

The husband moved for rehearing, arguing that the trial court erred in determining the amount of fees after a motion calendar hearing instead of an evidentiary hearing and without the requisite findings to support the amount of fees awarded. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys fees without an evidentiary hearing and without specific findings as to the reasonableness of the amount of attorneys fees. We agree.

“A trial judges decision to impose sanctions for bad faith litigation conduct is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Bennett v. Berges, 50 So. 3d 1154, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

A trial courts award of attorneys fees under the inequitable conduct doctrine “must be based upon an express finding of bad faith conduct and must be supported by detailed factual findings describing the specific acts of bad faith conduct that resulted in the unnecessary incurrence of attorneys’ fees.” Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002). In addition, the fee award amount must be directly related to the fees incurred by the opposing party resulting from the bad faith conduct. Id.; see also Bennett, 50 So. 3d at 1160 (“[A]n award of fees as a sanction must be directly related to the attorneys fees and costs that the opposing party has incurred as a result of the specific bad faith conduct.”).

In Hicks v. Hicks, 284 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), this court reversed where the trial court failed to take any expert testimony or make any findings as to the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate. This court explained:

In awarding attorneys fees, a trial court must set forth specific findings, predicated on expert testimony, as to the hourly rate and number of hours reasonably expended. Fla. Patients Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151-52 (Fla. 1985); Mitchell [v. Mitchell], 94 So. 3d [706] at 707 [(Fla. 4th DCA 2012)]. The same rule applies with respect to an award of attorneys fees as a sanction. Rakusin v. Christiansen & Jacknin, P.A., 863 So. 2d 442, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Id. at 579. Like in Hicks, here the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and failed to make any findings as to a reasonable hourly rate and reasonable number of hours.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts determination of entitlement to attorneys fees, reverse as to the amount, and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make specific findings as to the hourly rate and number of hours reasonably expended.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Levine, J.

Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.