Raymond Dion Wells v. Bridgette Lawson Wells
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 15, 2023
Docket2D21-3406
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
RAYMOND DION WELLS,
Appellant,
v.
BRIDGETTE LAWSON WELLS,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-3406
February 15, 2023
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Lisa D. Campbell, Judge.
Elizabeth S. Wheeler of Berg & Wheeler, P.A., Brandon, for Appellant.
Mark A. Neumaier of Law Office of Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa; and
Morten B. Christoffersen of Morten B. Christoffersen, P.A., Clearwater,
for Appellee.
SLEET, Judge.
Raymond Wells (the Husband) challenges the trial court's nonfinal
order granting temporary attorney fees and suit money, including fees for
the Wife's accountant, entered in favor of Bridgette Wells (the Wife) in the
parties' action for dissolution of marriage. Because the trial court erred
in relying on the inadmissible affidavit of the Wife's accountant when it
awarded $5,342 in costs, we reverse that portion of the order. We affirm
the order in all other respects.
A trial court has broad discretion to award expert witness fees. See
Rotunda v. Rotunda, 259 So. 3d 216, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). The court
abuses its discretion when it makes findings that are not supported by
competent substantial evidence. See Raza v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co.,
100 So. 3d 121, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
The Husband argues that the court's factual finding that the Wife
incurred $5,342 in accountant fees is unsupported by the record.
Specifically, he argues that the trial court improperly relied on the
inadmissible affidavit of the Wife's accountant in arriving at this figure. He
maintains that at the hearing, the trial court improperly overruled his
hearsay objection. The Wife concedes that the objection should have been
sustained, and we agree.
At the December 11, 2020, fee hearing, the Wife introduced the
affidavit of her accountant, Sonya Johnson. The affidavit, dated two
years earlier on November 1, 2018, was accompanied by various
documents, including a "case summary" of time and charges dated
November 13, 2018, and a computer-generated summary dated
November 15, 2018, which addressed invoices, including one dated April
6, 2018. The Husband objected that these documents were hearsay.
When counsel for the Wife was asked to respond to that objection, the
following discussion occurred:
[COUNSEL FOR WIFE]: I don't have anything to say.
We could have produced Ms. Johnson, but we didn't. I mean,
the Court was present when she participated in the [final]
hearing.
THE COURT: But as to her costs and the outstanding costs
that are yet to be paid?
2
[COUNSEL FOR WIFE]: Yes. She has only been paid once.
That was by Mr. Wells, when he paid the $7,500.
THE COURT: It will be received over the objection of the
former husband.
Johnson's November 2018 affidavit and attached documents
constituted hearsay, which the Wife failed to establish were admissible
under any recognized hearsay exception. Cf. Roggemann v. Bos. Safe
Deposit & Tr. Co., 670 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ("[O]ver
objection, a trial court cannot rely on affidavits at the hearing to assess
attorney's fees, since they are hearsay.").
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's determination of costs for
the Wife's accounting expert in the amount of $5,342 and remand for a
new hearing on that issue. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3