Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Can a court disregard a settlement agreement entered between the parties and require a different result? The answer depends on what is at issue in the agreement. In the case Nicholas v. Nicholas, 4D2024-0214 (Fla. 4th DCA March 19, 2025), the court added a provision regarding additional attorney’s fees and costs even though the parties had already agreed on how to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
Not much is included in this appellate opinion in the way of background information, but in this divorce case, the former husband appealed and the appellate court reversed as to four issues raised by the Former Husband. First, no child support guidelines worksheet was attached: “Although the final judgment generally references the “Child Support Guidelines Worksheets,” it does not identify the worksheets in the record to which it was referring.”
Second, the trial court stated in its judgment that the child support was based on imputed income to the former husband, but the final judgment did not contain findings of fact as to the imputation. The appellate court held “A final judgment calculating child support is inadequate if it does not contain “explicit factual findings concerning . . . the amount and source of any imputed income.” Marquez v. Lopez, 187 So. 3d 335, 337–38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).”
Third, the former husband argued it was error for the trial court to fail to include a provision in the final judgment requiring the former wife to continue providing health insurance coverage for the parties’ children. The appellate court held “Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), mandates that all child support orders contain a provision for health insurance for minor children if the insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible to the children. Even if one parent already pays for the minor children’s health insurance, the final judgment must still include a provision making the payment of the children’s health insurance a legal obligation.”
The final argument considered by the appellate court was that the trial court erred in including a provision regarding attorney’s fees - The opinion states “Before trial, the parties agreed on [attorney’s fees], and the trial court entered an agreed order in accord with that agreement. Although the final judgment ordered the parties to comply with this order, the judgment then added that any attorney’s fees or costs exceeding the levels approved by the agreed order would be paid jointly from marital funds.” The appellate court reversed, holding “We find the inclusion of the attorney’s fees provision was error for two reasons. First, neither party requested such relief from the trial court. [. . .] Second, the provision states that additional attorney’s fees would be paid using marital funds, even though the trial court equitably distributed the marital estate in the final judgment. Thus, a subsequent award of attorney’s fees could result in the inequitable diminution of Husband’s share of the equitable distribution.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.