III. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN AWARDING SANCTIONS TO THE HUSBAND WHICH WIFE COULD NOT AFFORD TO PAY
Summary
The Trial Court has the discretion to order sanctions based on the vexatious and overly litigious actions of the Former Wife. Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Diaz v. Diaz, 727 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The Court found that the Former Wife engaged in vexatious or overly litigious conduct by refusing to obey numerous discovery orders, and refusing to attend a court ordered video deposition. The Court awarded the Husband fees and costs caused by the Wife’s bad behavior. There is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate the Wife could not afford to pay attorney’s fees and costs, and in fact, the Former Wife never testified at a single hearing, never put on any testimony, never put on any witnesses, and refused to attend the Final Hearing. The Former Wife seeks to introduce evidence in her Appeal that was never introduced as evidence in the record. “To a woman who had to borrow $2,500 to retain an attorney, that is a small fortune.” This does not appear anywhere in the record, and appears only in the Wife’s Amended Initial Brief.
Argument
The Former Wife, argues that the Former Husband was awarded sanctions which she could not afford to pay. There is nothing in the record that indicates whether or not the Former Wife could afford to pay sanctions. In fact, Appellee cannot ascertain from the Wife’s Initial Brief, exactly what the Former Wife is even addressing. The Former Wife does make mention that in her brief, “The trial court was aware that Wife could not afford to pay her attorney,” but this does not appear anywhere in the record and was never entered into as evidence,” therefore cannot be considered on appeal. The Former Wife does go on to say in her brief, “but it (Court) failed to even inquire as to Wife’s financial circumstance at any point during the final hearing.” Apparently, the Appellant does not understand that it is not up to the Court to inquire of anything. It is up to the party (or her counsel) to have the evidence introduced into the record. Finally, no evidence was entered into the record at trial, because the Former Wife simply chose not to appear at the trial.
The Trial Court has the discretion to order sanctions based on the vexatious and overly litigious actions of the Former Wife. Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997); Mettler v. Mettler, 569 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Diaz v. Diaz, 727 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The Court found that the Former Wife engaged in vexatious or overly litigious conduct by refusing to obey numerous discovery orders, and refusing to attend a court ordered video deposition. The Court awarded the Former Husband fees and costs caused by the Former Wife’s bad behavior. There is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate the Former Wife could not afford to pay attorney’s fees and costs, in fact, the Former Wife never testified at a single hearing, never put on any testimony, never put on any witnesses, and refused to attend the Final Hearing. The Former Wife seeks to introduce materials in her Appeal that were never introduced as evidence in the record. In the Wife’s Amended Initial Brief, she states, “To a woman who had to borrow $2,500 to retain an attorney, that is a small fortune.” This does not appear anywhere in the record, and appears only in the Wife’s Amended Initial Brief.
