Frezza v. Frezza
216 So. 3d 758
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Justine Frezza (former wife) appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the Lee County circuit court, challenging multiple provisions (property, expenses, parental responsibility, and fees).
- No trial transcript was provided on appeal and the appellant did not file a statement of the evidence; the absence of a record limited appellate review.
- The trial court awarded the former husband attorney's fees in paragraph 13: 7 hours at $300/hour ($2,100) for fees incurred after the former wife refused to agree to the husband's proposed judgment following an announced agreement at trial.
- The final judgment also contains paragraph E stating each party shall pay their own attorney's fees, creating an apparent conflict with paragraph 13.
- The wife argued the fee award failed to consider statutory factors (financial positions, need, ability to pay) and that the judgment lacked adequate Rowe findings to support the fee amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate record adequacy for review | Frezza: trial errors warrant reversal on various factual and legal rulings | Frezza did not provide transcript or statement of evidence | Affirmed; without a record, court declines to review underlying factual rulings (appellant bears burden) |
| Entitlement to attorney's fees under §61.16/Rosen | Frezza: court erred by awarding fees without findings on need, ability to pay | Husband: fee entitlement was found in the judgment (paragraph 13); trial may have made findings at hearing | Affirmed; cannot assess error in absence of transcript—findings may have been made at hearing or in writing |
| Adequacy of Rowe findings re: fee amount | Frezza: judgment merely states amounts are "reasonable" and lacks specific Rowe findings | Husband: paragraph 13 specifies number of hours and hourly rate, satisfying Rowe | Affirmed as to sufficiency: court found paragraph 13 did include specific findings (hours and rate) meeting Rowe standards |
| Conflict between two fee provisions in the judgment | Frezza: paragraph 13 imposes fees on her; paragraph E says each pays own fees—needs resolution | Husband: cites paragraph E to argue parties pay own fees; alternatively paragraph 13 controls for fees after her refusal | Not affirmed as final—remanded for clarification/correction of the apparent conflict between paragraph 13 and paragraph E |
Key Cases Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (appellant must provide proper record; failure usually fatal)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (appellant burden to provide record)
- Jericka v. Jericka, 198 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (absence of record precludes review of trial court factual/legal bases)
- Cranney v. Cranney, 206 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (only facial errors reviewable without transcript)
- Arena v. Arena, 103 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (fee awards under §61.16 and Rosen require findings)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (standards for marital dissolution fee awards)
- Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (findings may appear in written judgment or at hearing)
- Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (trial courts must make specific findings on hourly rate and hours for fee awards)
- Keeley v. Keeley, 899 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Rowe insufficiency can render fee award deficient)
- Beck v. Beck, 852 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Rowe requires findings on rate and hours)
- Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (orders lacking Rowe findings are fundamentally erroneous)
- O'Connor v. O'Connor, 184 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (remand for correction of scrivener's error)
- Lee v. Lee, 56 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (remand for clarification of conflicting treatment of assets)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So. 3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remand for clarification whether unequal distribution was intended)