Schecter v. Schecter
109 So. 3d 833
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Prenuptial agreement (2002) provided wife would receive $260,000 if divorce occurred, reflecting large disparity in net worth.
- In 2010, parties entered two stipulations for temporary relief: spousal support, exclusive use of home, and attorney’s fees; orders memorialized on record.
- First agreement (July 29, 2010) specified monthly support, travel and domestic help payments, exclusive occupancy, and $150,000 temporary fees to the wife’s counsel.
- Second agreement (June 23, 2011) reduced wife’s temporary attorney’s fees to 85% with 15% hold for final determination.
- Marriage dissolved; prenuptial agreement found valid; trial court later terminated wife’s temporary support and, separately, temporary fees.
- Appellate court affirmed termination of temporary support but reversed termination of temporary attorney’s fees, concluding fees must continue under statute and prior agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by terminating temporary alimony. | Schecter argues continued need for support despite windfall concerns. | Schecter contends good cause to end temporary support exists due to excess payments. | No abuse; temporary alimony properly terminated. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by terminating temporary attorney’s fees. | Schecter contends fees should continue under §61.16 and agreements. | Schecter argues fees may be terminated due to pending final judgment. | Abuse found; fees must continue pursuant to statutes and stipulations. |
| Whether pre-dissolution contract provisions can override ongoing support obligations. | Schecter emphasizes ongoing obligations cannot be contracted away during pendency. | Schecter relies on agreements modifying fee obligations. | Court recognizes temporary obligations cannot be waived; fees must be paid. |
| Whether the court properly applied equity principles governing temporary support and fees. | Schecter stresses equitable consideration given disparity in resources. | Schecter emphasizes windfall risk from continued payments. | Equity supports maintaining fee obligation; support termination still upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1972) (temporary support cannot be waived by contract during pendency)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (purpose of fee awards is to ensure equal access to counsel)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (fees are meant to avoid inequitable diminution of funds)
- Duss v. Duss, 111 So. 382 (Fla. 1926) (trial court may terminate temporary support; alimony not fixed by contract)
- Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 2005) (spousal support obligation extends to attorney’s fees cannot be contracted away)