Hallac v. Hallac
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Wife filed for dissolution in Aug 2009; husband earned over $500,000 annually; wife had no income.
- Settlement offer Nov 2009 valued assets to leave wife with ~$95,000 and husband with negative net worth, excluding offshore account and Weston Capital as marital assets; tax amnesty reporting created tax/fees potential for wife if marital.
- Jan 2010 offers: wife proposed asset split per her schedule; alimony and modest fees; husband counter-offered with assets reallocated; wife rejected and proposed her own counteroffer; husband went to trial.
- Discovery motions by wife to obtain financial disclosures; court granted some discoveries just before trial; husband supplied some information late.
- Trial in Apr 2010: final judgment largely favors wife on alimony and asset division; tax penalties and fees offsets treated as wife’s costs; husband’s interest in Weston Capital deemed partly marital but value discounted; no appeal by wife.
- Fee awards: trial court denied wife’s post-offer fees; awarded husband fees post-offer; wife appeals; issue separated for Rosen-based analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Rosen support partial fee denial for wife after last offer | Wife: Rosen permits considering results, not automatic denial; need/ability governs; post-offer denial requires justification. | Husband: last offer was reasonable; wife could not improve at trial; post-offer fees justified under Rosen. | Partial denial affirmed under Rosen |
| Is awarding fees against wife to husband for not accepting offer proper | Wife: cannot shift fees to her absent vexatious conduct; lack of bad faith here. | Husband: Rosen allows considering conduct; denial against wife to deter avoidable litigation. | Award against wife reversed; no vexatious conduct shown |
| Did Diaz and related decisions control whether fees could be awarded against a non-low-income spouse | Wife: Diaz limits inherent-authority awards; no need-based denial supports inherent-authority fee award. | Husband: Diaz supports sanctions for long-shot or vexatious practice. | Diaz-based authority not controlling here; inherent-authority award not justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997) (trial court may consider results obtained under 61.16; may deny fees for vexatious conduct)
- Diaz v. Diaz, 727 So.2d 954 (Fla.3d DCA 1998) (settlement behavior; presuit offers; inherent authority issues later clarified in Diaz II)
- Diaz v. Diaz, Diaz II, 826 So.2d 229 (Fla.2002) (inherent authority rulings; long-shot claims insufficient for attorney’s fees against counsel)
- Aue v. Aue, 685 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1st DCA 1997) (offer refusals not per se grounds to deny all fees; dissolution exemption to offer statute)
- Levy v. Levy, 900 So.2d 737 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) ( Rosen permits consideration of settlement behavior; complete denial improper where not spurious)