When does the judge require the Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees

In the case of Baker v. Baker, 35 So.3d 76 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the Court stated the trial court committed error because there was a lack of evidence supporting the temporary attorney fee.  The Husband appealed from the trial court's order awarding temporary attorney's fees to the Wife. There was sparse testimony regarding fees at the hearing below. The Wife testified that she borrowed $4,500 to retain counsel and that $1,800 was spent on four days of depositions. No other evidence was presented regarding the Wife's attorney's hourly rate, or the number of hours expended on the case. The trial court found that the Wife had the need, and the Husband had the ability to pay $7,500. The husband challenged the lack of evidence to support the amount awarded and challenged the need for a remand, arguing that the Wife had failed to produce evidence to support her claim for temporary relief. The District Court held:

1. "To obtain an award of temporary attorney's fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, '[t]he party seeking fees must prove with evidence the reasonableness and the necessity of the fee sought.'"

2. "Here, the trial court did not make factual findings regarding the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and, in fact, could not do so because no evidence was presented to support findings on a reasonable hourly rate. Further, limited information was presented as to the time expended or to be expended."

3. "Because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support a determination on the reasonableness of the fees awarded, we reverse the appealed order to the extent that it awarded $7500 in temporary attorney's fees."

4. "[A] temporary award does not create vested rights, and the trial court may modify or vacate a temporary award at any time during the litigation. We thus remand for further proceedings for the trial court to determine a reasonable temporary fee award and for the trial court to make findings to support that award."

Who has to pay the transfer cost of a retirement fund?

In the case of Seawell v. Hargarten, 28 So.3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) the Court ruled that it is the responsibility of the spouse in possession of the asset to effectuate the transfer.

            The parties entered into a Consent Final Judgment which, in pertinent part, required the Husband to pay to the Wife a total of $65,470 in cash and to also transfer to the Wife 50% of the shares of an Oppenheimer Mutual Fund. The Husband was required to do so by August 1st. Prior to the deadline, the Husband sent the Wife two checks totaling $24,700 and $24,327, thus leaving a balance owed of $16,443 as to the cash payment. On July 31st, the Husband sent a letter authorizing his broker to transfer 100% of the shares in the mutual fund to the Wife. At the time, the Fund had a value of $29,477.84. In other words, the Husband was attempting to apply the cash value of his 50% of the Fund ($14,738.92) toward the outstanding balance due on the required cash payment. Before he authorized the transfer of the Fund, the Husband had advised his counsel that he did not have enough cash to pay the $16,443 owed to the Wife. An exchange of emails then took place between the parties' counsel. The Husband's attorney asked the Wife's attorney if she would accept stock from the Fund toward the outstanding balance and the Wife's attorney replied that it did not matter how the Wife got her money "as long as she got all of it." On August 1st, the Wife wrote to the broker of the Fund accepting only her 50% of the Fund. Since the two authorization letters did not match, the broker did not transfer any shares of the Fund to the Wife. The Wife then filed an enforcement motion which the trial court denied, finding that the Wife could have accepted the Husband's offer to transfer the entire Fund to her. The District Court reversed:

1. "First, the authorization letter sent by the Husband, unlike the one sent by the Wife, did not comply with the terms of the Final Judgment. Second, the Husband made no further effort to assure the Fund assets were transferred."

2. "Clearly, to avoid responsibility, an individual must be able to demonstrate that the failure of the transfer to occur was due to factors beyond their control. In essence, the Husband would be able to show, that in spite of his efforts, it was impossible to transfer the assets. Certainly, this is not the case here."

Is a pre-nup valid if signed 10 days before a marriage?

In the case of Gordon v. Gordon, 25 So.3d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement ten days prior to their marriage. Neither party had legal counsel but had discussed the agreement for several months. The wife was "an individual with a high level of education and business acumen who, having twice married, understood the significance of the document she was about to sign and chose not to seek the advice of a lawyer." The agreement essentially provided that each party's property at the time of the marriage would remain his or her separate property.  In his financial disclosure, the husband listed various pension accounts but did not specify the pension he would receive from his employer. The court affirmed:

1. "We first address whether the agreement was reached under duress, coercion or overreaching. The record before us presents the former wife as an individual with a high level of education and business acumen who, having twice married, understood the significance of the document she was about to sign and chose not to seek the advice of a lawyer. And, while the parties disagreed over the amount of time the former wife had to contemplate the agreement, we hold that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by declaring that a period of ten days prior to the marriage is sufficient time for one to exercise the opportunity to review the agreement, and, if one so chooses, to seek the advice of legal counsel." 

2. "We next address whether the former husband's failure to specifically disclose his airline pension plan constitutes fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The agreement specifically provided that each party shall retain as separate property all retirement accounts and property listed on the attached schedules."

3. "Additionally, the agreement included a provision specifically addressing pension benefits under its own section heading. The former husband's schedule of property referenced "Retirement Plans (Keogh, 401(k), etc)" and specifically listed the former husband's 401(k) plan through his employer; however, no mention was made of the airline pension plan of which the former husband was a beneficiary."

When can lump sum alimony be awarded?

In the case of Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010):

TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF PERMANENT ALIMONY BY WAY OF A LUMP SUM AWARD TO THE WIFE WAS NOT "UNFAIR" SIMPLY BECAUSE LUMP SUM ALIMONY IS A VESTED RIGHT THAT WOULD SURVIVE REMARRIAGE.

Prior to the dissolution hearing, husband and wife resolved the majority of issues between them. The trial court was asked to consider only the wife's claim for permanent and retroactive alimony and her claim that the liquid marital assets should be distributed unequally due to the husband's dissipation of certain marital assets during the marriage. At the close of the dissolution proceedings, the trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony payable as lump sum as well as retroactive alimony. It also found that the husband had dissipated marital assets, and it charged those dissipated assets to the Husband in its equitable distribution scheme. The husband first contended that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the wife $261,240 in permanent alimony payable as a lump sum. The argument has two components: first, whether the wife was entitled to permanent alimony, payable as a lump sum; and second, whether the amount of the award was supported by evidence. With regard to the Husband's argument that the award was "unfair," the District Court held:

1. "At oral argument, counsel for the Husband argued that it was 'unfair' to award permanent alimony as a lump sum because the Wife would get to keep the entire award even if she chooses to remarry or cohabit." 

2. "We reject this 'unfairness' argument for three reasons. First, there was no evidence that the Wife sought permanent alimony payable as a lump sum because she was planning to remarry or cohabit…. Second, there is nothing 'unfair' about a court of equity exercising its discretion to select from the range of available options, provided that the option chosen is supported by the evidence and can withstand the applicable standard of review. Third, the Husband cannot be heard to complain simply because his chosen financial strategy did not produce the desired result. The Husband's course of conduct forced the trial court to choose between awarding the Wife nominal permanent periodic alimony or a reasonable amount of permanent alimony payable as a lump sum. The fact that the Husband's apparent strategy to avoid paying permanent alimony backfired is the risk he took when he chose that course of action. Absent legal error, a party's failed strategy is not rectifiable on appeal."