In a divorce proceeding, even if the record supports an award of attorney's fees, the failure to include the necessary findings in the order constitutes reversible error. In Bradham v. Bradham, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Timothy Bradham, the former husband, appeals the trial court's order modifying his alimony obligation and requiring him to pay attorney's fees and costs of appellee, Susan E. Bradham, the former wife. We find no abuse of discretion in the modification of alimony.Galligar v. Galligar, 11 So. 3d 808, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Because the trial court made no findings to support the fee and cost award, we reverse the order granting fees and costs and remand for further proceedings.
In a divorce proceeding, the Court must conduct a hearing before it determines that the attorney's fees that are requested by a party are reasonable. In Newman v. Newman the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Appellant, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises four issues on appeal, only one of which warrants reversal and remand.
In a divorce proceeding, if the Court orders a deviation from the statutory child support guidelines that is greater than five (5%) percent, the Court must provide written findings supporting this deviation. InCaudill-Rosa v. Rosa the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Amy Caudill-Rosa, the Former Wife, appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Albert Rosa, the Former Husband. Because the trial court failed to support its deviation from the child support guidelines with specific written findings, we reverse and remand for further proceedings addressing the child support award. We affirm as to the remaining issues without comment.
In a divorce modification proceeding, where the parties have previously agreed that a party will not take credit for substantial time-sharing, the Court should not award a substantial time-sharing credit absent some substantial change in circumstances (like a reduction in income) that would justify overlooking the earlier waiver. In Emmenegger v. Emmenegger the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated that: "The provision at issue in the 2005 agreement specifically states that '[t]he parties['] visitation arrangements outlined herein will not be considered as the [f]ather['s] having 40% of time with the children.' It is clear from the wording of the provision and the other provisions in the agreement relating to child support and visitation that the parties intended for the father's visitation schedule to have no effect on the father's child support obligations.