Court Opinion

ID: 9411293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:05:03.371292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.857030
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                              EHAB NASEF,
                               Appellant,

                                     v.

                             MONICA EDDY,
                               Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-3046

                              [July 26, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Luis Delgado and Melanie Dale Surber, Judges; L.T. Case
No. 50-2019-DR-004842-XXXX-SB.

   Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus Reich
Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellant.

   Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CIKLIN, J.

   In this appeal from a paternity judgment, the appellant, Ehab Nasef,
Sr. (“father”), challenges two orders that preceded the judgment: (1) the
amended order awarding attorney’s fees to the appellee, Monica Eddy
(“mother”), and (2) the order denying the father’s petition to modify
previous decrees that controlled parental responsibility and timesharing.
We reverse the attorney’s fees order and remand for the trial court to make
required findings, but we otherwise affirm the attorney’s fees order. With
respect to the order denying modification, we strike the portion of the order
finding the father in contempt because the issue of contempt was not
properly before the court. However, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that
the father failed to establish a substantial, material, and unanticipated
change in circumstances to warrant modification of parental responsibility
and timesharing.

   The father first challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to
the mother, asserting that the court failed to make a finding as to the
reasonableness of the hours expended. Although the trial court made
findings regarding the number of hours expended on the case by the
mother’s counsel, it did not make any findings as to whether the hours
expended were reasonable. This was error. See Amro v. Gazze, 244 So.
3d 334, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (reversing because the trial court “failed
to make factual findings regarding . . . the reasonable number of hours
expended for the attorney’s fees awarded”); Powell v. Powell, 55 So. 3d 708,
709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“The law is well established that the trial court
must set forth specific findings concerning . . . the number of hours
reasonably expended . . . .”). Consequently, we reverse and remand for
the trial court to address the reasonableness of the hours expended on the
case by the mother’s attorney.

    Second, in its order denying the father’s modification petition, the trial
court found the father in contempt and awarded the mother makeup
timesharing. This was error, as the issue of the father’s contempt was not
before the trial court. See Romero v. Brabham, 300 So. 3d 665, 668 (Fla.
4th DCA 2020) (“[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested
in the pleadings. To grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion and
reversible error.” (alteration in original) (quoting Stover v. Stover, 287 So.
3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020))). The mother contends that the father’s
contempt was tried by implied consent. She relies on the father’s failure
to object to certain testimony related to the father’s allegedly
contemptuous conduct. But the testimony was relevant to matters
properly before the court, and thus, the father’s failure to object to such
testimony did not constitute consent to try the contempt issue. See Fed.
Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Trinidad, 358 So. 3d 754, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
(“[A] failure to object cannot be construed as implicit consent to try an
unpled theory when the evidence introduced is relevant to other issues
properly being tried.” (quoting Anchor Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Trif, 322 So. 3d
663, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021))). We remand for the trial court to strike the
portion of the order finding the father in contempt and awarding makeup
timesharing.

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

                            *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      2