Renee Marie Hollonbeck, n/k/a Renee Marie Turley, Former Wife, Appellant,
Sean Andrew Hollonbeck, Former Husband, Appellee.
final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Ana Garcia,
Jane Brehany of E. Jane Brehany, P.A., Pensacola, for
B. Adkinson of Adkinson Law Firm, LLC, DeFuniak Springs, for
Marie Hollonbeck challenges both the trial court's Final
Judgment and Amended Final Judgment establishing a parenting
plan, child support, time-sharing schedule, and other related
relief. We find that the trial court did not consider or make
any findings regarding her former husband's ability to
pay attorney's fees and the former wife's need to
have the fees paid. See Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So.2d
1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Perrin v. Perrin,
795 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We also find that
the trial court failed to calculate pre-judgment interest for
its award of retroactive child support. See Herrero v.
Pearce, 571 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Finally,
we find that the trial court abused its discretion when it
ordered shared parental responsibility, but gave the former
husband ultimate decision-making authority over the child.
See Neville v. McKibben, 227 So.3d 1270, 1272-73
(Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Cranney v. Cranney, 206 So.3d
162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). We reject the former wife's
the attorney's fees issue, the former husband correctly
notes that a trial court is permitted to consider the
parties' litigation conduct to limit an award of
attorney's fees. See Rosaler v. Rosaler, 226
So.3d at 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). However, in determining
whether and how much to award fees under section 61.16(1),
Florida Statutes, "the financial resources of the
parties are the primary factor to be considered."
Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1997).
While "section 61.16 should be liberally- not
restrictively-construed to allow consideration of any factor
necessary to provide justice and ensure equity between the
parties," id., which may result in no award of
fees at all, a trial court must consider the "financial
resources of both parties." § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat.
The record reflects no such consideration.[*]
the issue of shared parental responsibility and ultimate
decision-making authority, Florida law requires that trial
courts award parents shared parental responsibility
"unless the court finds that shared parental
responsibility would be detrimental to the child."
§ 61.13(2)(c)2., Fla. Stat. Therefore, the trial court
has two options at its disposal: 1) grant both parents shared
parental responsibility and "grant to one party the
ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the
child's welfare" or "divide those
responsibilities between the parties based on the best
interests of the child"; or 2) grant "sole parental
responsibility for a minor child to one parent, with or
without time-sharing with the other parent if it is in the
best interests of the minor child." §
61.13(2)(c)2.a.-b., Fla. Stat.
we reverse and remand so that the trial court can 1) make the
appropriate findings regarding both parties' ability to
pay and need for attorney's fees; 2) calculate and impose
pre-judgment interest on its award of retroactive child
support; and 3) refashion its determination of parental
responsibility and decision-making authority consistent with
its findings and the law.
in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
Thomas, J, concurs; Makar, J, concurs in part and dissents in
part with opinion.
J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
concur as to the pre-judgment interest and parental
responsibility issues but view it as unnecessary for a trial
judge to go through the burden of determining the
parties' respective financial abilities to pay
attorneys' fees when she's already decided that