Arena v. Arena
103 So. 3d 1044
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Marcia L. Arena appeals a final judgment dissolving marriage and the order assigning bridge-the-gap alimony rather than permanent alimony.
- The trial court also ordered John F. Arena to pay 60% of Marcia’s attorney’s fees and costs; Marcia was responsible for 40%.
- The trial court found each party would leave the marriage with $296,000 in assets and imputed $70,000–$80,000 to Marcia for income.
- The court concluded Marcia could obtain employment within three to nine months with diligent effort; findings are supported by the record.
- The fee award was entered more than six months after the final hearing and lacked explicit findings linking the amount to Rosen factors or other justifications.
- On appeal, the court affirms the alimony award but reverses and remands the fee award for proper factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attorney’s fee award lacks support in findings | Arena argues the fee award is inadequately explained and arbitrary. | Arena contends the trial court considered factors but did not articulate them. | Reversed; remanded for explicit findings on fee entitlement and amount. |
| Whether the 60%/40% fee split is justified | Arena contends the court should consider need and ability to pay under §61.16 and Rosen factors. | Arena asserts the split reflects disparity in income and litigation conduct. | Reversed; remanded for proper findings explaining the specific allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anciaux v. Anciaux, 666 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for fee awards; statutory factors)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (consider need and ability to pay; justice and equity factors)
- Balko v. Balko, 957 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (overall financial positions; not just income)
- Trespalacios v. Trespalacios, 978 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (scope of factors including litigation history and conduct)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So.3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (need for explicit findings supporting fee entitlement)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (adequate findings required to justify amount)
- Gagnon v. Gagnon, 539 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (sanctions-based fees require explicit findings)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 867 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (articulate conduct warranting Rosen adjustment)
- Spenceley v. Spenceley, 746 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (denial of fees to wife where justifications)