Goldstein v. Goldstein
Case No. 4D10-3081

We represented a former wife in an appeal from an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court had denied our client her attorney’s fees and costs without making any findings as to our client’s need and the former husband’s ability to pay. Additionally, in the equitable distribution the trial court had attributed to our client a marital account that she had used to pay living expenses after the former husband had moved out and stopped paying any of the bills associated with the marital home.

On appeal, we argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying our client her fees and costs without making the appropriate findings as to need and ability to pay. We also argued that the trial court had erred in attributing the depleted account to our client in equitable distribution where the trial court had not made the required finding that depletion of the account was due to any misconduct by our client.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court had erred in failing to make the findings regarding need and ability to pay attorney’s fees and costs. The Fourth DCA further held that the trial court erred in denying our client her fees and costs, based on the significant income disparity between the parties as shown by the record. The Fourth DCA also held that the depleted account could not be attributed to our client in equitable distribution without a finding of misconduct, and that our client’s actions in spending the funds on reasonable living expenses did not qualify as such misconduct. See Tillman v. Altunay, 44 So.3d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Sheehan v. Sheehan, 943 So. 2d 818, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The Fourth DCA reversed the amended final judgment and remanded it to the trial court for an award of fees to our client and a credit to her of her marital portion of the depleted account to be included in her equalizing payment.

** [Note: At the time of this posting, the Fourth DCA mandate has not issued. The decision will not be final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing. ] **

Bell v. Bell,
Case No. 4D10-5122

This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties’ assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client’s main issues were (1) the trial court’s failure to award her half of the husband’s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) the trial court’s failure to make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) agreed with our position that the trial court had erred in failing to award our client half of the husband’s accounts receivable. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. On remand to the trial court, the former husband took the position that the issue required an evidentiary hearing to determine the new equitable distribution of the asset. We opposed the need for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that the Fourth DCA had clearly stated in its written opinion that the value of the omitted account receivable was $660,611 based on undisputed testimony from the trial. The trial court agreed and entered an order denying the former husband’s demand for an evidentiary hearing.

The former husband next argued that the former wife should receive the omitted equitable distribution amount as an in-kind distribution (i.e. in assets of the business such as the notes themselves). We opposed the former husband’s position and argued that the former wife should receive the omitted amount as a cash distribution. The trial court received proposed Final Judgments from the parties reflecting the parties’ positions. On June 7, 2012 the trial court rendered an Amended Final Judgment that conformed to the appellate court’s mandate and also ordered that the omitted amount would be payable to former wife in cash in an amended equalization payment.

This outcome preserved the positive result we achieved in the appellate court for our client, saved her the additional attorney’s fees associated with a lengthy evidentiary hearing following remand, and obtained an order that the former husband must pay her the omitted equitable distribution amount in cash.

Michele K. Feinzig, along with Defendant’s trial counsel, Kimberly A. Gilmour of Kimberly A. Gilmour, P.A., represented the employer in an appeal from a summary judgment in the employer’s favor (Third DCA Case No. 3D11-1446). The underlying lawsuit was brought by the employee after she was part of a company layoff necessitated by the economic downturn of 2009. The employee alleged claims of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation, but she had failed to timely file her Charge of Discrimination pre-suit with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Florida Commission on Human Relations.  Despite a convoluted set of facts resulting from the employee’s efforts to cover her failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Third DCA agreed with the employer and affirmed the decision of the trial court, bringing an end to the litigation.

Hallac v. Hallac
Case No. 4D10-4450

We represented a former wife in an appeal from the trial court’s order on opposing motions for attorney’s fees following trial. On appeal, our firm argued that it was legal error for the trial court to have used our client’s refusal of a settlement offer and the fact that she later obtained a less favorable result at trial as a basis to punish her in the attorney’s fee award.

The Fourth DCA agreed in part. The Fourth DCA held that the trial court was allowed to deny our client her fees for her failure to accept the settlement offer because under Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), a trial court is allowed to consider settlement offers and the results obtained by a party in making an award of fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2009). However, the Fourth DCA found that the former husband had no “need” to support a statutory award of fees to him, and that our client’s conduct in refusing the settlement offer did not rise to the level of vexatious or bad faith conduct sufficient to support an award against her under the court’s inherent authority to prevent such conduct.

The Fourth DCA reversed the award of fees to the former husband. This favorable result would allow our client to obtain the fees she was awarded for work prior to her rejection of the settlement offer, free of the setoff resulting from the award to the former husband. However, the former husband then filed a motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certification of conflict. The former husband asked the Fourth DCA to revisit its decision on the grounds that the decision conflicted with decisions from the Florida Supreme Court and other Florida district courts of appeal.

We opposed the former husband’s motions. We argued that the Fourth DCA’s decision in this case did not conflict with any of its previous decisions. Furthermore, while we acknowledged some general conflict between the Fourth DCA’s decision in this case and decisions from other district courts of appeal, we argued that the conflict would not change the result in this case due to the Fourth DCA’s holding that our client’s conduct did not amount to bad faith or vexatious litigation. On June 5, 2012, the Fourth DCA denied the former husband’s motions, and we successfully preserved our client’s appellate win in the Fourth DCA.

Bell v. Bell, 502007DR002692XXXXSB
Case No. 4D10-5122

This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties’ marital and non-marital assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client’s main issues were (1) the trial court’s failure to award her half of the husband’s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) the trial court’s failure to make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) agreed with our position that the trial court had erred in failing to award our client half of the husband’s accounts receivable. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. On remand to the trial court, the former husband took the position that the issue required an evidentiary hearing to determine the new equitable distribution of the asset. We opposed the need for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the Fourth DCA clearly stated in its written opinion that the value of the omitted account receivable was $660,611 based on undisputed testimony from the trial.

The trial court agreed and entered an order denying the former husband’s demand for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court received proposed Final Judgments from the parties. This preserved the positive result we achieved in the appellate court for our client and saved her the additional attorney’s fees associated with a lengthy evidentiary hearing in the trial court after remand.