Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-30-2022
Case Style:
PAUL BRIAN HELINSKI, vs HADASSA HELINSKI
Case Number: 19-2270
Judge: Before HENDON, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Court:
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
On appeal from The
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass
Description:
Miami, FL - Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with appealing an order of fees rendered in favor of attorney.
Paul Helinski appeals from the trial court’s final judgment of fees
rendered in favor of attorney Kira E. Willig, who served as the guardian ad
litem (“guardian”) for his children in the post-decretal marital dissolution
proceedings below. We conclude that notwithstanding a voluntary dismissal,
the trial court retained jurisdiction to award the guardian her fees and allocate
the same between the parents. See e.g., Tobkin v. State, 777 So. 2d 1160,
1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (noting that “a voluntary dismissal does not divest
the court of jurisdiction to conclude ancillary matters involved in the case
such as outstanding and unresolved motions for attorney’s fees and costs,
and similar issues”); Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So. 3d 1034, 1037-38 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2017) (finding trial court had jurisdiction to consider non-party’s motions
for sanctions based upon revelation of confidential settlement negotiations
by attorney that were submitted before parties filed stipulation of dismissal).
However, we reverse because the trial court failed to address
outstanding discovery issues before the fee hearing, thus depriving the
father of due process. See Jackson v. Leon Cty. Elections Canvassing Bd.,
204 So. 3d 571, 578-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (finding trial court abused
discretion and thus violated petitioner’s due process rights by entering final
order prior to resolving unresolved discovery disputes and ruling on
3
outstanding motions). Upon remand, we note that the trial court is without
authority to consider the attorney’s fees for collection efforts that the guardian
sought after dismissal.1 Cf. O'Neill v. O'Neill, 812 So. 2d 448, 451-52 (Fla.
2d DCA 2002). Thus, we reverse the fee award and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion
Outcome: Reversed and remanded
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: