Young v. Hector

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 2004 · Family Law

Family Lawappellate attorney's feesappellate costssanctionsmandate rulemandateappellate feesappellate costs

Facts

The appellate court had previously granted certiorari in part to the former husband and later granted his motion for appellate attorney's fees, remanding only for the amount to be fixed. At the fee hearing, the former husband's expert testified that 75.3 hours at $300 per hour was reasonable, for a total of $22,590, and the former wife offered no expert testimony. Despite the prior mandate, the former wife's counsel again challenged entitlement and reargued matters already rejected, and the trial court awarded only 15 hours, or $4,500, plus $1,350 in expert fees and only the $250 filing fee as costs. The former husband then appealed, arguing the trial court had been led to revisit entitlement and had improperly reduced both fees and costs.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by effectively revisiting entitlement to appellate attorney's fees after the appellate court had already mandated such an award, and by awarding reduced attorney's fees and limited costs unsupported by the record. Whether the former husband was also entitled to attorney's fees as a sanction for being forced to pursue this appeal because of frivolous claims and arguments contrary to the mandate.

Rule

When an appellate court has already granted entitlement to appellate attorney's fees and remanded for the amount to be fixed, the trial court must follow that mandate and set a reasonable amount supported by the record rather than re-litigating entitlement. Costs under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 include the full allowable appellate costs, including charges for preparation of the record. Attorney's fees may be imposed against a party and counsel when frivolous claims or unsupported arguments contrary to an appellate mandate force unnecessary litigation or appeal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a post-dissolution case in Miami, the district court granted Daniel Ruiz entitlement to appellate attorney's fees and remanded to the circuit court solely to set the amount. At the remand hearing, Nora Patel's lawyer argued Daniel should receive no fees at all because his earlier appellate arguments were weak, and the judge denied fees entirely.

How should a reviewing court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that when the appellate court has already granted entitlement to appellate attorney's fees and remanded for the amount to be fixed, the trial court must follow that mandate and may not re-litigate entitlement. Denying fees altogether based on renewed attacks on entitlement violates the mandate.