Court Opinion

ID: 9780954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:08:20.663592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:43.660594
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-249
                       Lower Tribunal No. 12-17787
                          ________________

                           Frank E. Polo, Sr.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           Merlin Hernandez,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer
Multack, Judge.

     Frank E. Polo., Sr., in proper person.

     Merlin Hernandez, in proper person.

     Segarra & Associates, P.A., Manuel A. Segarra, III, and Irech M.
Colon, for interested party Segarra & Associates, P.A.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
      Appellant, Frank E. Polo, Sr., the father, challenges a final order

ratifying the recommendations of a general magistrate and awarding

attorney’s fees to appellee, Merlin Hernandez, the mother. On appeal, he

contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees and, alternatively,

the trial court placed its imprimatur on the recommendations without

independently reviewing the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we

affirm all aspects of the order, save the provision characterizing the fees as

a form of support that “shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy

proceedings.”

                              BACKGROUND

      Given the nature of the issues on appeal, the facts require little

elaboration. As succinctly observed in this court’s earlier opinion in Polo v.

Hernandez, 338 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022):

      Since the Mother and Father parted ways in 2012, the parties
      have continued to engage in litigation over various aspects of the
      parties’ 2013 mediated settlement agreement, attorney’s fees,
      and child support, among other things.

      In June 2019, a general magistrate was ordered to resolve two
      separate motions: 1) the Mother’s motion for attorney’s fees and
      costs to be paid by the Father, and 2) the Mother’s attorney’s
      motion for attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by the Father.
      The magistrate’s report was issued July 19, 2019, and was
      served on the Father’s attorney by mail on July 22, 2019. The
      Father’s attorney timely filed his exceptions to the report on July
      29, 2019.

                                      2
Id. at 386–87 (footnote omitted). A predecessor judge initially ratified the

report and awarded fees without first considering legal argument on the

father’s exceptions. This court reversed for a hearing. Id. at 389. The

successor judge determined that Polo voluntarily absented himself from the

duly convened hearing and overruled the exceptions.            Included in the

magistrate’s recommendation was a finding that the fees “shall not be

dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings.” This appeal ensued.

                                  ANALYSIS

      Applying a de novo standard of review, we conclude Polo has failed to

demonstrate reversible error in his first point on appeal. Lopez v. Dep’t of

Revenue, 201 So. 3d 119, 123–24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Notwithstanding the

fact that the reservation contained in the operative final judgment was

sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to award post-judgment fees,

it is axiomatic that fees in family law cases may be awarded “from time to

time” in accord with the considerations set forth in section 61.16(1), Florida

Statutes (2023). Hence, the thirty-day limitation contained within Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 is inapplicable, and there was no jurisdictional

impediment to awarding fees. See Juhl v. Juhl, 328 So. 3d 1031, 1032–33

(Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

                                       3
      As to the second point, competent, substantial evidence in the form of

billing records and testimony bearing on the reasonable hours expended,

hourly rate, and available resources support the fee award.

      We are constrained to remand, however, because the magistrate

determined the fee award was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. This finding

was premature. In Meeks v. Meeks, 964 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), our

sister court cogently explained:

      The problem with the trial court’s judgment is that it reached an
      issue of federal law that is not yet ripe for consideration. A state
      trial court is free to place language in a judgment to memorialize
      factual determinations or legal rulings on questions of state law
      that may later assist a bankruptcy court in deciding, as a matter
      of federal law, the dischargeability of obligations created by the
      judgment. However, the law does not allow a state court to
      decide the federal issue of discharge prior to the filing of any
      bankruptcy proceeding.

Id. at 187 (footnote omitted) (citation omitted); see also Segall v. Segall, 708

So. 2d 983, 989 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“The trial court also erred in

prematurely determining that the Wife’s attorneys’ fee award was in the

nature of support and not dischargeable in bankruptcy. State courts have

concurrent    jurisdiction   with   bankruptcy   courts   to   determine     the

dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy.”); Scharmen v. Scharmen, 613 So.

2d 121, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (quoting In re Shaw, 67 B.R. 911, 912

(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1986)) (“[T]he debt is nondischargeable when the fees

                                       4
were incurred either through litigation of alimony, maintenance, or support

issues, or through litigation of issues ‘so tied in with the obligation of support

as to be in the nature of support or alimony.’”); Huey v. Huey, 643 So. 2d

1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[W]hat constitutes alimony, maintenance

or support is determined under federal bankruptcy law.”). Accordingly, we

affirm but remand with instructions to strike the bankruptcy discharge

preclusion.

      Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

                                        5