Case Name: PYSZKA, KESSLER, MASSEY, WELDON, CATRI, HOLTON & DOUBERLEY, P.A., Petitioner, v. Claudia MULLIN, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-07-14
Citations: 602 So. 2d 956
Docket Number: No. 91-1758
Parties: PYSZKA, KESSLER, MASSEY, WELDON, CATRI, HOLTON & DOUBERLEY, P.A., Petitioner, v. Claudia MULLIN, Respondent.
Judges: Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 602
Pages: 956–961

Head Matter:
PYSZKA, KESSLER, MASSEY, WELDON, CATRI, HOLTON & DOUBERLEY, P.A., Petitioner, v. Claudia MULLIN, Respondent.
No. 91-1758.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 14, 1992.
Elser, Greene & Hodor and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for petitioner.
Susan R. Cohen, Nancy Schleifer, Miami, for respondent.
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
ON HUSBAND'S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON ATTORNEY'S FEES
BASKIN, Judge.
We deny John Mullin's motion for rehearing of this court's order awarding attorney's fees to his wife, Claudia Mullin. The facts of this case are set forth in Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton and Douberley, R.A. v. Mullin, 602 So.2d at 955, where this court granted certiorari review of an order denying John Mullin's law firm's motion for a protective order in the Mullins' dissolution of marriage action; we ruled in favor of the firm. Claudia Mullin had filed a response to the petition for certiorari in compliance with this court's order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(f). Subsequently, she filed a motion for attorney's fees in this court. We granted her motion and remanded the cause to the trial court. Chertoff v. Chertoff, 553 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Henning v. Henning, 507 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). John Mullin asks us to reconsider our ruling.
First, he contends that he was not a party to the certiorari proceeding and should not be compelled to pay the fee. We disagree. Although the petitioner law firm did not name the husband as a respondent in the petition caption, that omission does not conclude the matter. The caption is not dispositive of the husband's status in the certiorari proceeding: substantive law determines whether the husband may be named as a proper party respondent. See Buchanan v. City of Winter Park, 226 So.2d 860, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). "The writ of certiorari, by removing to a reviewing court, the record of a subordinate tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed, brings before the reviewing court all of the parties who appeared and were heard as parties to the proceeding in which the challenged order was made." In re Grubb, 116 Fla. 387, 389, 156 So. 482, 483 (1934); State Beverage Dept. v. Willis, 159 Fla. 698, 700, 32 So.2d 580, 582 (1947); see Brigham v. Dade County, 305 So.2d 756 (Fla.1974); De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 915-916 (Fla.1957); Orlando Trans. Co. v. Florida R.R. & Pub. Util. Comm'n, 160 Fla. 795, 809, 37 So.2d 321, 329 (1948); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 166, 112 So. 66, 68 (1927); cf. Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA) (where city did not appear before zoning board it did not have standing to file certiorari petition in circuit court), cause dismissed, 537 So.2d 568 (Fla.1988). Because the husband is a party to the dissolution action that engendered the order on review, he is within the jurisdiction of this court. See In re Grubb, 116 Fla. at 389-390, 156 So. at 484.
As to the award of attorney's fees, the husband asserts that section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991), is inapplicable to this proceeding. We disagree. Section 61.16 endeavors to prevent a party's inferior financial status from limiting the quality of that party's legal representation in a dissolution action. Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828, 835 (Fla.1990); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). "The purpose of section 61.16 . is to ensure that both parties . have similar access to counsel and can thus fight the action on a nearly equal footing." Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So.2d 1006, 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Those policy reasons are pertinent to this proceeding. Because the cer-tiorari petition was filed to obtain review of an order entered in the dissolution action, see De Groot, 95 So.2d at 916 ("It is clear that certiorari is in the nature of an appellate process."), certiorari review does not constitute a non-chapter 61 proceeding. The wife is entitled to attorney fees in such review proceedings. Kurtz v. Kurtz, 538 So.2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see Sierra v. Sierra, 505 So.2d 432 (Fla.1987). Consequently, the denial of a fee award on that basis is without merit. Compare Battista v. Battista, 585 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Berger v. Berger, 573 So.2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) with Kass v. Kass, 560 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Contrary to the husband's assertions, the wife's failure to prevail in the certiorari proceeding does not preclude a fee award. The prevailing party standard does not govern in determining whether the court may award an attorney fee to a party in a dissolution action. Rosen v. Rosen, 576 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Chertoff, 553 So.2d at 180; Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), quashed in part on other grounds, 474 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1985); Mulford v. Sullivan, 560 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see Sierra, 505 So.2d at 432; Finkelstein v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986). Instead, "[o]ur case law implementing [section 61.16] requires a judge to consider the needs of the party seeking a fee and the financial resources of the parties to assure that both parties received adequate representation." Quanstrom, 555 So.2d at 835; Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1197.
Finally, the husband's argument that the fee award should be denied as a consequence of the wife's litigiousness is without merit. The record fails to demonstrate that the wife engaged in baseless litigation and incurred unnecessary expense in seeking discovery to determine her husband's interest in the law firm or in complying with this court's order to file a response to the petition. See Eisner v. Markovich, 585 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Elenewski v. Elenewski, 528 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So.2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Sutter v. Sutter, 578 So.2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and cited cases.
Accordingly, we deny the husband's motion for rehearing.
JORGENSON, J., concurs.
. The husband had filed an objection in response to the wife's notice of production from the law firm's records custodian.
. The husband does not contend that he was without notice of the proceeding or the wife's motion for fees.