SHARON P. ROSALER v. BRIAN L. ROSALER
226 So. 3d 911
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties married ~8.5 years with three minor children; Wife filed for dissolution and sought ex parte injunctive relief in Jan 2014.
- Wife subsequently filed an injunction alleging Former Husband sexually abused the children; she relayed these allegations to the children’s school principal and pediatrician.
- At final hearing Wife admitted the child-abuse allegations were false and conceded filing for the injunction on behalf of the children was "a mistake."
- Wife sought substantial fees and costs at trial: $528,433 in attorneys’ fees, $77,399 in costs, and $303,423.50 in forensic accounting fees (total ~ $909,255.50); she also sought remaining guardian ad litem fees.
- Trial court found Wife had financial need and Husband had ability to pay but concluded much of Wife’s fees resulted from her own litigation misconduct (false allegations, unnecessary motion for guardian ad litem, unreasonable positions).
- Court awarded Wife a portion of requested fees (Husband to pay $95,000 attorneys’ fees and $35,000 accountant fees) and ordered Wife to pay outstanding guardian ad litem fees; Wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may consider litigation misconduct when awarding fees under §61.16 | Rosaler argued her fees were reasonable and largely arose from responding to Husband’s conduct | Husband argued Wife’s misconduct generated unnecessary fees and court should limit awards despite Husband’s superior finances | Court held misconduct is a proper factor; trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting fee award |
| Whether financial disparity alone controls §61.16 fee awards | Wife argued need + Husband’s ability to pay mandated payment of full fees | Husband argued financial ability does not insulate Wife from consequences of her conduct | Court reaffirmed financial resources are primary but other factors (scope, history, merits, misconduct) are relevant |
| Whether false protective allegations preclude fee recovery | Wife contended fees incurred were still reasonable despite false allegations | Husband argued false allegations intensified litigation and made fees excessive | Court treated false allegations as evidence of misconduct justifying reduction in fee award |
| Whether appointment of guardian ad litem after parties agreed justified fees | Wife argued GAL appointment and related work necessary and Husband should pay | Husband argued GAL motion was unnecessary and increased fees unfairly | Court found GAL motion contributed to unnecessary litigation and supported limiting Wife’s recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (section 61.16 is equitable, broad grant of discretion; court may consider financial resources plus litigation scope, history, merits, and misconduct)
- Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (a party’s financial advantage does not shield them from consequences of misconduct in litigation)
- Von Baillou v. Von Baillou, 959 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (central inquiry under §61.16 is need and ability to pay, but other factors remain relevant)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (appellate review of fee awards is for abuse of discretion)