Chittim v. Chittim
230 So. 3d 966
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Final judgment of dissolution (Aug 2014) awarded Shelly Chittim (Former Wife) attorneys' fees and costs against David Chittim (Former Husband) under Fla. Stat. § 61.16 and Rosen v. Rosen; court reserved determination of the reasonable amount.
- Wife moved to have the court fix the fee amount; before that determination was made she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (Dec 2014). Bankruptcy stayed the fee calculation.
- Wife disclosed the dissolution and the pending fee award to the bankruptcy trustee; Westchase Law (her counsel) had a charging lien but did not file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy; Wife did not list the fee award as an asset or list a debt owing to Westchase in the petition.
- Bankruptcy trustee investigated, concluded she had no interest in the fee award, and took no action; the bankruptcy court later granted the Wife a discharge (Apr 2015).
- At a post-bankruptcy hearing, the trial court: (1) held the Wife judicially estopped from pursuing the fee award for failure to list it in bankruptcy, and (2) concluded Wife could not recover because her debt to her attorneys had been discharged and counsel waived their claim by not filing in bankruptcy. Wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife is judicially estopped from enforcing the prebankruptcy fee award because she did not list it as an asset in bankruptcy | Wife: She consistently told the trustee about the dissolution and fee award; trustee had no interest; omission was not done to deceive | Husband: Failure to list the award shows intent to manipulate and warrants estoppel | Court: No estoppel — totality of circumstances (disclosure to trustee, trustee awareness and inaction) negates intent to deceive |
| Whether Wife lost right to collect fee award because her debt to her attorneys was discharged in bankruptcy and counsel failed to file a claim | Wife: Discharge makes debt unenforceable by counsel but does not eliminate Wife’s entitlement to the award against Husband; charging lien and award survive discharge | Husband: Discharge and counsel's failure to file proof of claim reduce award to zero | Court: Discharge and counsel’s nonfiling do not negate the fee award; discharged debts remain debts (unenforceable against the debtor), so Wife may still be entitled to recover fees from Husband; remand to determine reasonable amount |
| Whether Westchase Law can directly pursue fees from Wife or Husband after bankruptcy and its failure to file a claim | Wife: Westchase Law waived collection rights against her by not filing; any right against Husband remains for Wife to enforce | Husband: Counsel’s nonfiling and Wife’s discharge eliminate recovery | Court: Trial court correctly held Westchase Law cannot pursue fees against either party; Westchase’s remedies limited by bankruptcy procedure |
| Whether trial court should calculate reasonable fee amount postbankruptcy | Wife: Court should determine and enforce the prebankruptcy award against Husband | Husband: Award should be zero or denied due to bankruptcy effects and estoppel | Court: Vacated denial; remanded for determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (may consider equitable factors) |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine applied at the court's discretion)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (chapter 61 fee proceedings are equitable and governed by fairness)
- Carter v. State, 980 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008) (judicial estoppel prevents inconsistent positions that mock justice)