Join the Marital & Family Law Section at hillsbar . com .
arereTroaCTiveaTTorneyfeeSaThing ? WhaTyouneedToknoW
Marital & Family law Section Chair : KimMaxwell – OlderLundyKoch & Martino
Thecourt ’ srulingservesasareminder thatwhilefloridalawallowsforthe shiftingofattorney ’ sfees , thismustbe donecarefullyandinlinewithboth statutoryandconstitutionalguidelines .
In recent years , the First District Court of Appeal has taken to applying strict constitutional scrutiny towards the issue of retroactive relief as illustrated in both the concurring opinion in Iarussi v . Iarussi , 353 So . 3d 75 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2022 ) and in Guimbelot v . Guimbelot , 352 . So . 3d 950 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2022 ). Well , they are at it again , this time addressing a Court ’ s power to award retroactive attorney fees .
Recent case law from Florida ’ s district courts reflects varying interpretations regarding retroactive application of attorney fees in family law cases . In Florida , attorney fees in family law matters are typically governed by Florida Statute § 61.16 , which seeks to ensure equitable outcomes by considering the financial positions of both parties involved . While the Fourth District Court of Appeal has focused primarily on procedural fairness , the Second and Third Districts have clarified the application of Rosen fees . The First District has taken yet another tact .
In Haslauer v . Haslauer , 381 So . 3d 662 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2024 ), the Florida First District Court of Appeal addressed significant issues
regarding retroactive attorney ’ s fees in dissolution proceedings . The central question was whether awarding attorney ’ s fees retroactively , particularly after the conclusion of a case , is permissible under Florida law and constitutional principles . This case builds on earlier case law interpreting Florida Statute § 61.16 .
In Haslauer , the former wife requested attorney ’ s fees after incurring substantial debt to cover her legal costs , using a high-interest credit card . The trial court awarded her attorney ’ s fees retroactively , ordering the former husband to reimburse her , even though both parties had similar financial resources post-divorce . The appellate court found this award erroneous on several grounds , notably the lack of specific findings regarding the wife ’ s financial need and the husband ’ s ability to pay . The court emphasized that retroactive awards of attorney ’ s fees must meet certain statutory requirements , including pleading a specific need and proving a significant financial disparity between the parties , which the former wife failed to do effectively .
Retroactive awards of attorney ’ s fees in family law cases , particularly
under § 61.16 , must pass constitutional muster . This means that they cannot violate due process rights or be issued without proper legal basis . In Haslauer , the court underscored that while attorney ’ s fees may be awarded to ensure access to legal representation , they must be justified by clear financial need . Courts must make specific findings to support such awards , as failing to do so could result in a violation of the opposing party ’ s constitutional rights .
The decision also touched on broader principles of equity . Florida courts , as noted in earlier decisions like Williams v . Jones , 290 So . 3d 609 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2020 ), have held that awarding attorney ’ s fees post-judgment requires a careful balance of both parties ’ financial positions . If both parties are in a comparable financial situation after equitable distribution and alimony rulings , a retroactive fee award can be seen as an abuse of discretion . The Florida appellate courts have consistently ruled against such awards when they are not properly
Continuedonpage47
Join the Marital & Family Law Section at hillsbar . com .
4 6 N O V - D E C 2 0 2 4 | H C B A L A W Y E R