FOREMAN v. JAMES (2020)

Petitioner Mary E. Foreman has filed a petition seeking certiorari review of two trial court orders: an order finding Foreman in indirect civil contempt of court and ordering Foreman's incarceration with a purge amount of $40,000; and a final judgment against Foreman and in favor of Respondent Thomas James' attorneys, in the amount of $50,000 in attorney's fees and costs.

We quash both orders. We quash the order of indirect civil contempt because this court, in a related appeal (3D19-1802), reversed the underlying order; it was Foreman's alleged refusal to comply with that underlying order that resulted in the trial court's indirect contempt order. As a result of the vacatur of that underlying order, this contempt order is no longer enforceable. See Foreman v. James, 305 So.3d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2020).

We also quash the final judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs ¹ as those fees and costs directly relate, in substantial part, to the contempt order which we have quashed.

Petition granted. Order and final judgment quashed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is also worth noting that this final judgment fails to contain any factual findings on need and ability to pay, see Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997); Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that after considering factors on need and ability to pay, trial court “must make specific factual findings ․ supporting its determination of entitlement to an award of attorney's fees”); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(providing: “[A] trial court cannot decide the issue of attorney's fees without findings as to one spouse's ability to pay fees and the other spouse's need to have fees paid”). The final judgment also fails to contain any findings regarding reasonable hourly rates, number of hours and amount of fees reasonably expected to be incurred. See Ortiz v. Ortiz, 227 So. 3d 730, 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Sunday v. Sunday, 610 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Gilliland v. Gilliland, 266 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019; Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

PER CURIAM.