Case Name: Wm. Samuel McALILEY II, Appellant, v. Helena H. McALILEY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-10-22
Citations: 704 So. 2d 611
Docket Number: No. 97-0418
Parties: Wm. Samuel McALILEY II, Appellant, v. Helena H. McALILEY, Appellee.
Judges: DELL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 704
Pages: 611–614

Head Matter:
Wm. Samuel McALILEY II, Appellant, v. Helena H. McALILEY, Appellee.
No. 97-0418.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 22, 1997.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 3, 1997.
Wm. Samuel McAliley II, West Palm Beach, pro se.
J. Steven Reynolds, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant, Wm. Samuel McAliley II, appeals from a Final Order Regarding Modification of Custody, Visitation, Parental Responsibility, and Other Issues rendered on December 11, 1996 and Order Denying Motion for Rehearing rendered January 2,1997.
Former husband also appeals from non-final orders arising from this litigation, including an Order on Pretrial Conference dated November 18, 1996; Order denying Former Husband's Motion to Allow Child to Testify dated November 5, 1996; Order granting Former Wife's Motion to Waive Mediation dated November 5, 1996; Order on [denying] Former Husband's Motion to Continue dated October 16,1996; Order Denying Father's Application to Set Temporary Relief Evidentiary Hearing dated October 5, 1996; Order granting Former Wife's Motion to Strike Hearing dated September 26, 1996; Order Denying Former Husband's Motions for Injunctions, and Granting Other Relief dated September 6,1995.
Finally, appellant also appeals from numerous orders denying his motions to disqualify the trial judge from the litigation.
We affirm as to all issues raised by appellant and award appellee attorney's fees based upon appellant's abuse of the judicial process in filing continuous, baseless and vexatious litigation.
Our research of the record in this post-judgment proceeding reveals that appellant, himself an attorney and member of the Florida Bar, has filed numerous appeals and petitions in this court arising from this litigation, many of which are duplicative.
The following history demonstrates appellant's excessive filing of frivolous claims. Appellant sought review of the trial court's order clarifying the final judgment in connection with visitation. That appeal was dismissed as untimely. (Case No. 94-1258). •Next, appellant filed an appeal from the trial court's order granting in part the former wife's motion to prohibit appellant's presence at routine medical and dental examinations of the minor child. That appeal was dismissed on July 12,1995 (Case No. 95-1650).
In August 1995, appellant sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit Judge Phillips from proceeding in the post-dissolution proceedings pertaining to the minor child's custody and visitation. (Case No. 95-2700). The petition claimed error in the denial of appellant's second sworn motion for disqualification of Judge Phillips which the trial judge denied as legally insufficient. Previously, the trial judge had denied an earlier motion for disqualification that was impermissibly predicated on the judge's adverse judicial ruling prohibiting the former husband's presence at the child's routine medical and dental examinations. In August 1995, the writ of prohibition was denied.
In September 1995 (Case No. 95-3365), appellant's third sworn motion for disqualification was denied and declared insufficient as a matter of law. Appellant filed a writ of prohibition [in this court] to prohibit Judge Philips from presiding over further proceedings; this petition was also denied.
In March 1996, appellant filed a non-final appeal (Case No. 95-3510) appealing from the September 5, 1995, Order Denying Former Husband's Motion for Injunctive Relief, and Granting Other Relief (also appealed herein). In April 1996, in a related case (Case No. 95-4241), appellant also filed a non-final appeal from the trial court's granting former wife's claim for attorney's fees. Both cases surrounded an evidentiary hearing on appellant's claim that the minor child was being harmed by second-hand smoke caused by former wife, and that former wife was telling the child how to behave when visiting with appellant, seeking an injunction against the former wife. Appellant also sought psychological counseling for the child and attorney's fees and costs. Both appeals were per curiam affirmed. Appellant again takes issue (in this appeal) with the trial court's September 5,1995, ruling.
Also in April 1996, appellant filed a non-final appeal (Case No. 95-4317) from the trial court's November 15, 1995 Order on Former Wife's Motion for Temporary Relief, requiring former husband's visitation with the minor child be supervised until the modification proceedings were resolved. This appeal was per curiam affirmed.
Attorney's fees may be awarded as a punitive measure where a spouse in a domestic relations case institutes frivolous non-meritorious claims that contribute to unnecessary legal expenses, costs and a delay of the proceedings. Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So.2d 435, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
As demonstrated above, the record is replete with appellant's abuses of the judicial process to justify our award of attorney's fees. While we are not insensitive to the trauma and emotion associated with a dissolution proceeding, we cannot condone appellant's actions in this case. We hold that appellant's course of conduct with respect to this litigation, on the trial level as well as the appellate level, to be baseless and duplicative and has served no purpose other than to prolong this litigation.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR DETERMINATION OF ATTORNEYS FEES.
DELL, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.