Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch
133 So. 3d 1020
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- The Amended Global Final Order on Remaining Issues addressed attorney’s fees, professional fees, and costs from November 1, 2009 through July 28, 2010.
- Prenuptial agreement provided each party bear their own attorney’s fees; court found waiver ineffective pre-judgment but effective post-judgment to bar post-judgment fee recovery.
- Trial court awarded the wife $846,218.52 for fees/costs incurred before entry of the Amended Final Judgment, the husband $34,500 for denial of admissions, and $22,500 under Rosen for vexatious conduct by the wife.
- On appeal, the wife challenged post-judgment fee recovery, the admission-for-fees award, and the Rosen sanction award.
- Appellate court reversed the fee award related to the wife’s denial of requests for admission, but affirmed other issues.
- Court upheld the sanction under its inherent authority for vexatious conduct, with required findings already documented in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-judgment fees and prenuptial waiver | Wife seeks post-dissolution fees despite waiver. | Waiver precludes post-judgment fee recovery. | Waiver precludes post-judgment fees. |
| Fees for admission requests | Husband entitled to fees for wife’s denial of admissions. | Fees proper under 1.380(c) when admissions are contested. | Reversed; award of fees tied to denying admissions was improper. |
| Vexatious conduct sanction under Rosen | No sanction under Rosen since financial disparities exist. | Sanction appropriate under Rosen and inherent authority for bad-faith conduct. | affirmed sanction under inherent authority for wife's vexatious conduct; Rosen basis not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Khan, 79 So.3d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (public policy issue with temporary support/fees; waiver invalid)
- Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972) (support guidance prior to dissolution cannot be supplanted by pre-dissolution agreements)
- Schneider v. Schneider, 32 So.3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (fees for fee litigation discretionary; distinctions with prenuptial waiver noted)
- Lawhon v. Lawhon, 583 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (temporary fees awarded for pre-judgment services; post-judgment treatment recognized)
- Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154 (Fla.2005) (freedom of contract regarding post-dissolution spousal support; evolving law)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997) (trial court broad discretion to award fees; factors include financial resources)
- Hallac v. Hallac, 88 So.3d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (Rosen cannot override lack of need/ability to pay; discusses basis for sanctions)
- Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So.2d 356 (Fla.1998) (inequitable conduct sanctions; require express bad-faith findings)
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221 (Fla.2002) (sanctions and related fee awards; need for supporting findings)