HASLAUER v. HASLAUER
So. 3d (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) 49 FLW D544 (3/6/2024)
ATTORNEY’S FEES SPENT ON THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACTION ARE CONSIDERED REASONABLE LIVING EXPENSES. WHERE A SPOUSE DEPLETES AN ASSET FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES OR REASONABLE LIVING EXPENSES AND THERE IS NO FINDING OF MISCONDUCT, THE ASSET SHOULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO THAT SPOUSE AS PART OF THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION PLAN.
The husband withdrew $17,500 from a joint bank account and used those funds to pay his attorney’s fees. After the Final judgment, the parties had similar incomes and the wife was awarded an equitable distribution equalization payment. The trial court granted the wife attorney’s fees as an equitable reimbursement for the former husband’s unilateral use of marital funds. The trial court found:
“The Court cannot as a matter of equity allow one party to spend marital funds on that one party’s attorney’s fees without taking that into consideration in the award of attorney’s fees to the other party. The payment of attorney’s fees is not a race that benefits the faster in this matter.”
The DCA reversed the trial court’s award based upon the above principles and the fact that the court did not find the husband’s actions were misconduct.
Also of note is that the wife’s pleading requesting fees alleged that the husband had the financial resources to pay the wife’s fees but did not allege that she has the need for financial assistance so that she could obtain the services of an attorney.
Query: Although this theory of law has developed over the years, is it fair that one party can deplete a marital asset to pay his fees? Doesn’t the trial judge’s reasoning make sense? The amount of attorney’s fees paid are easily quantified. Note the case of Bellows v. Bellows, 245 So 3d. 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) that supports the 1st DCA’s holding in this case where the 4th DCA held that the trial court erred when it assigned a depleted bank account that the wife used to pay attorney’s fees and living expenses to the wife in its equitable distribution plan at its full value before the use of the funds rather than $0 which was its value as of the date of the final hearing.