Chris Beckstrom v. Julie Beckstrom
183 So. 3d 1067
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Chris Beckstrom (former husband) and Julie Beckstrom (former wife) litigated a contested dissolution of marriage; the trial court entered a final judgment and awarded the former wife attorney’s fees and required life insurance coverage.
- Husband moved for rehearing, arguing the fee award and the life-insurance requirement lacked required written factual findings (including his ability to pay and the factual basis for the payment plan).
- Trial court denied rehearing; husband appealed.
- The Fourth District reviews fee awards for abuse of discretion and evaluated whether the final judgment contained the statutorily and case-law required written findings.
- The court found the judgment showed the wife’s need and that fees were reasonable, but did not include findings on husband’s ability to pay or a factual basis for the chosen payment plan; husband had proposed the life-insurance term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made required written findings on husband’s ability to pay attorney’s fees | Beckstrom (husband) argued court failed to find his ability to pay | Wife argued §61.16 does not require specific factual findings and judgment adequately addressed reasonableness | Reversed: court must make written findings on husband’s ability to pay; remanded for findings |
| Whether trial court provided factual basis for fee payment plan | Husband argued payment schedule lacked factual basis | Wife contended court has discretion to allow time payments | Reversed: specific factual basis for the payment plan is required; remanded |
| Whether judgment made adequate findings on reasonableness of hours and hourly rate | Husband claimed findings were inadequate | Wife argued judgment sufficiently addressed reasonableness | Affirmed: court’s findings on reasonableness were sufficient |
| Whether ordering life insurance was error | Husband argued life-insurance requirement was erroneous | Wife noted husband proposed and agreed to the provision | Affirmed: invited-error doctrine bars husband’s challenge to life-insurance term |
Key Cases Cited
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of review for fee awards in dissolution)
- DeLillo v. DeLillo, 848 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversal where court failed to find need and ability to pay)
- Baime v. Baime, 850 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (trial court must find parties’ financial needs and abilities to pay)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (trial court must state factual basis for imposing a specific payment plan)
- Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (errors apparent on face of judgment should be corrected)
- Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (invited error doctrine)
- Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (party cannot complain about provisions it proposed)