RICH v. RICH 656 (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sandra Epperson RICH, Appellant, v. John D. RICH; Arnold R. Rich; Bannum, Inc.; Kentucky Management Group, Inc.; and 656 R/E Venture, Inc., Appellees.

No. 2D19-2721

Decided: August 31, 2022

David A. Maney of Maney, Damsker & Jones, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Michael J. Park of Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee John D. Rich. No appearance for remaining Appellees.

Sandra Epperson Rich (the Former Wife) appeals the trial court's nonfinal order awarding John D. Rich (the Former Husband) $126,220.61 in attorney's fees and costs and denying her amended motion for attorney's fees and costs in this dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court based its ruling on “the Former Wife's inequitable conduct regarding her meritless defenses to the establishment and enforcement of the parties' Antenuptial Agreement” and the Former Wife's “inequitable conduct regarding documents she allegedly procured from a dumpster on the private property of the Third-Party Defendants and their accountant.” Given our disposition of the parties' related appeal from the final judgment of dissolution,¹ we reverse.

In Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), this court concluded that the trial court's findings regarding the interpretation of the antenuptial agreement and the admissibility of the “dumpster documents” were erroneous and that a new trial was required. Id. at 147–49. Thus, because many of the findings on which the trial court based its attorney's fee award to the Former Husband will be revisited on retrial, we reverse the fee award to the Former Husband and remand for reconsideration.

We also reverse the denial of the Former Wife's amended motion for attorney's fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2018), and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997). Upon remand, the court shall consider the relative financial positions and conduct of the parties during the proceedings, including the Former Husband's delay tactics, litigiousness, and failure to comply with many orders of the court. See Kelly v. Kelly, 925 So. 2d 364, 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that the former wife was entitled to costs and attorney's fees caused by the bad faith of the former husband, including his obstructive tactics and his delay in paying sums due the former wife throughout the proceedings).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

FOOTNOTES

1. Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

KELLY, Judge.

MORRIS, C.J., and SMITH, J., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network