If you are going through a divorce in the Tampa Bay area — or navigating a contentious post-divorce dispute — one of the most pressing questions on your mind is probably: “How am I going to pay for this?” Litigation is expensive, and when one spouse earns significantly more than the other, the financial imbalance can feel crushing. Fortunately, Florida law has long recognized this problem and gives courts the power to order one spouse to help cover the other’s legal costs. But a recent 2024 Florida appellate decision, Levy v. Levy, shows just how nuanced that process can be — and why having an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer in your corner matters more than you might think.
In this post, we break down the Levy v. Levy case in plain English, explain what the court decided, and walk you through the practical takeaways that could affect your own case. Whether you are just beginning to think about divorce, are already in proceedings, or are dealing with a post-divorce modification battle, this case offers important lessons about attorney’s fees, financial disclosure, and how Florida courts weigh misconduct.
The Levy v. Levy Case: What Happened in Plain English
Einath and Samuel Levy divorced back in 2011 in Florida. They have two minor children together, and by all accounts their legal disputes — especially over custody and timesharing — did not end when the divorce was finalized. More than a decade later, they were still locked in courtroom battles. Samuel (the former husband) had filed a petition to modify timesharing and decision-making authority over the children, meaning the litigation was ongoing with no clear end in sight.
In September 2021, Einath (the former wife) filed a motion asking the court to order Samuel to pay her attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs — both past fees she had already incurred and future fees she anticipated needing. Her argument was straightforward: she did not have the financial resources to keep up with the litigation, and without help, she would be at a severe disadvantage.
The court held an evidentiary hearing in September 2022 to look at both sides’ finances. Here is what the evidence showed:
- Samuel was the CEO of a software company. His financial affidavit showed a monthly gross income of $10,960, but a forensic accountant hired by Einath testified that, when you looked more carefully at both his personal and corporate bank accounts, his true financial picture was considerably stronger than what he reported.
- Einath’s income was modest — she reported a net monthly income of $2,532.10, a portion of which was child support that had already been suspended. She had been mostly unemployed or self-employed with minimal income from a clothing design business.
- Critically, the court found that Einath had been living in a condominium owned by her brother — rent-free, essentially — in a unit that would have fetched $2,500 to $3,000 per month on the open market. She paid only the monthly maintenance fee.
- The court also found that Einath’s long-term boyfriend had been paying “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in attorney’s fees and other personal expenses on her behalf over the years.
- Einath had never repaid either her brother or her boyfriend for any of this financial support.
On top of all of this, the trial court found that Einath was primarily responsible for the “bitter, incessant, and unending litigation” between the parties. The court found she had violated shared parental responsibility, interfered with timesharing, refused to communicate with the father, and failed to provide the children with adequate structure and routine.
Based on all of this, the trial court denied Einath’s motion entirely. She had asked for $104,295.77 in total fees and costs. She got nothing.
Einath appealed, and in March 2024, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued its ruling — one that is important for anyone involved in Tampa family law proceedings to understand.
What the Appellate Court Decided — and Why It Matters
The appellate court did not simply reverse the trial court’s decision or hand Einath a victory. Instead, it sent the case back down to the trial court — a process lawyers call a “remand” — with specific instructions to fix two significant problems with the original ruling.
Problem #1: Can Gifts Count as Income?
The first issue involved whether the generous support Einath received from her brother (free housing) and her boyfriend (hundreds of thousands in legal and personal expenses) could be counted as “income” when calculating her financial need.
Under Florida law, gifts and in-kind payments — like rent-free housing — can be treated as income if they are “regular and expected” and if the evidence shows they are likely to continue into the future. The logic is sensible: if someone is effectively receiving thousands of dollars per month in housing and other support, their true financial situation is very different from what their bank account alone might suggest.
The problem in this case was that, while the evidence clearly showed these gifts had been given regularly in the past, nobody testified about whether they would continue going forward. The trial court had counted them as income without that crucial evidence — and the appellate court said that was an error. For the court to factor those gifts into the equation, it needed to first determine whether they were likely to keep coming.
The appellate court sent the case back for additional evidence and findings on exactly that question.
Problem #2: Litigation Misconduct Can Reduce — But Not Automatically Eliminate — Your Fee Award
The second, and arguably more significant, issue involved what happened to Einath’s fee request because of her alleged misconduct in the litigation.
Florida courts do consider a party’s improper conduct when deciding whether — and how much — to award in attorney’s fees. That is a well-established principle. But the appellate court made clear that this does not mean a judge can simply say “you misbehaved, so you get nothing” without doing the math. The court must actually:
- Identify which specific attorney’s fees were caused or inflated by the misbehaving party’s conduct.
- Quantify the dollar value of that misconduct — in other words, assign a number to the portion of the fees that resulted from the wrongdoing.
- Deduct only that amount from the fee award — not the entire request.
Because the trial court found Einath had caused the bitter, ongoing litigation but then denied her entire $104,295.77 request without any quantification of how much her misconduct actually inflated those costs, the appellate court found there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a complete denial. The remedy was not to hand Einath the full amount she asked for — it was to send the case back and require the trial court to do the analysis properly.
In short: misconduct matters, but it has to be quantified. A blanket denial is not acceptable under Florida law when a party has a documented financial need.
What Does This Mean for Your Florida Divorce Case?
If you are going through a divorce in the Tampa Bay area — or dealing with a post-divorce custody or support dispute — the Levy v. Levy decision has several real-world implications for you. Here is what you should take away from this ruling.
1. Financial Transparency Is Non-Negotiable
Florida divorce and family law proceedings require both parties to disclose their finances fully and honestly. The Levy case is a powerful reminder that courts look beyond formal income — they consider housing subsidies, regular gifts from family members, money paid by romantic partners, and any other financial support that reduces your real cost of living.
This works both ways. If your spouse is receiving significant financial help from a parent, sibling, or partner — help that isn’t showing up on their financial affidavit — an experienced Florida divorce attorney can help you bring those resources to the court’s attention. Conversely, if you are receiving support from loved ones, you need to be honest about it and work with your attorney to properly characterize it in light of current Florida law.
2. Gifts and In-Kind Support Can Be Counted as Income — But Only Under the Right Circumstances
The appellate court’s guidance on when gifts count as income is nuanced. A one-time, unexpected gift from a family member is different from a regular, ongoing financial arrangement. If your brother has been paying your rent for ten years, that is a very different situation from receiving a birthday check.
Under Florida case law, gifts can be imputed to you as income only if they are continuing and ongoing, not sporadic, and if evidence shows they are likely to keep coming. That is an important limitation. Just because someone has been generous in the past does not automatically mean that generosity will continue — and the court cannot assume it will without evidence.
For people going through a divorce or post-divorce proceeding in Tampa, this means your attorney needs to think carefully about how to present — or challenge — financial support that comes from third parties. The evidentiary record matters enormously.
3. Attorney’s Fees Can Be — and Often Are — Part of the Fight
Many people going through a Tampa family law case are surprised to learn that attorney’s fees are themselves subject to court orders. Under Florida Statute Section 61.16, courts have broad authority to order one spouse to pay the other’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs — precisely because the legislature recognized that a large income disparity between spouses can create an unfair playing field.
The purpose, as Florida’s Supreme Court articulated decades ago, is to ensure that both parties have a similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. The system is designed to prevent a well-funded spouse from simply outlasting the other side through attrition.
If you believe you cannot afford to adequately fight your case, this is something you must raise with your attorney — and raise early. Interim fee awards (fees ordered during the case, not just at the end) are available in Florida, and they are designed for exactly the situation Einath Levy found herself in.
4. Your Conduct in the Case Can and Will Be Scrutinized
This is a lesson that cannot be overstated, especially in contentious custody disputes. The trial court in Levy found that the former wife’s conduct — violating shared parental responsibility, interfering with timesharing, refusing to communicate — was a major factor in the ongoing litigation. That finding cost her in the fee proceeding.
But here is what the appellate court clarified: even when you have behaved badly, a court cannot simply wipe out your entire fee request without doing the work of calculating how much your behavior actually cost the other side. Misconduct reduces your award — it doesn’t necessarily eliminate it entirely, and the reduction must be tied to specific conduct that caused specific additional legal costs.
The practical lesson for anyone involved in a Florida family law case: be cooperative. Comply with court orders. Communicate with your co-parent. Not just because it is the right thing to do for your children — but because your conduct in the case has direct legal and financial consequences for you.
5. Trial Court Decisions Must Be Based on Actual Evidence — and So Must Appeals
One of the most important principles in the Levy case is the court’s insistence on competent, substantial evidence to support major rulings. The trial court’s feeling that Einath had caused trouble was not, by itself, enough to deny her motion entirely. The court needed to do the analysis — to connect the misconduct to specific dollar amounts — before making that call.
This is actually good news for people going through divorce proceedings. It means that courts — including trial courts here in the Tampa Bay area — are held to a standard of reasoned analysis. They cannot simply rule against you because they find the other side more sympathetic. They must explain their decisions, supported by the evidence in the record.
And if they do not? That is what appeals are for. The Levy case is itself a testament to the value of an appellate review. Even though the trial court’s overall conclusions may have been reasonable, the lack of specific findings and quantification was enough to send the case back.
How Income Is Calculated in Florida Divorce and Support Cases
The income questions raised in Levy v. Levy come up in many different contexts in Tampa family law cases — not just attorney’s fee disputes. Child support calculations, alimony determinations, and financial need assessments all require careful analysis of what each party truly earns and receives. It is worth pausing to understand how Florida courts approach this.
Under Florida Statute Section 61.30, gross income for child support purposes includes not just wages but also reimbursed expenses and in-kind payments to the extent they reduce a person’s living expenses. That is the same statutory provision that was implicated by Einath’s rent-free housing arrangement.
In practice, this means Florida courts can look at a very wide range of financial resources when determining income. Business income (including income funneled through corporate accounts, as was alleged in the Levy case), rental value of housing, regular gifts and cash transfers, and the payment of personal expenses by third parties are all potentially relevant.
This is why forensic accountants — like the expert Einath brought in to analyze Samuel’s finances — can be invaluable in complex divorce cases. When one spouse owns a business, controls corporate accounts, or has non-traditional income sources, the numbers on a standard financial affidavit may tell only part of the story.
Post-Dissolution Disputes: When Divorce Doesn’t End the Legal Battle
The Levy case is a post-dissolution proceeding — meaning it arose after the divorce was finalized. For many families with children, the legal relationship between former spouses does not end at the courthouse door. Disputes over timesharing schedules, parental decision-making authority, child support modifications, and relocation requests can keep former couples tied up in litigation for years — sometimes, as in this case, for more than a decade.
If you are dealing with a post-divorce dispute in the Tampa Bay area, you are not alone. These cases require the same level of careful legal strategy as an initial divorce proceeding — and in some ways more, because the history between the parties and the previous court orders create additional legal complexity.
Attorney’s fees in post-dissolution proceedings are governed by the same statute — Section 61.16 — that applies in initial divorce cases. The court looks at the same factors: need, ability to pay, financial disparity, and conduct. The lessons from Levy v. Levy apply just as much to a timesharing modification fight as to an original divorce.
Frequently Asked Questions About Attorney’s Fees in Florida Divorce Cases
Can I ask the court to make my spouse pay my attorney’s fees?
Yes. Under Florida Statute Section 61.16, either party in a divorce or family law case can request that the court order the other party to contribute to their attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs. The court will look at the financial resources of each party, including income, assets, and any financial support they receive from others. There is no guarantee of an award, but if there is a significant disparity in financial resources, a fee award is a real possibility.
What happens if I have been receiving money from a family member or partner — will the court count that as income?
Possibly, but only under certain conditions. As the Levy v. Levy case makes clear, Florida courts can impute gifts and in-kind support as income only if that support is regular and ongoing and is expected to continue into the future. Sporadic gifts, or support that may not continue, are treated differently. This is a fact-intensive analysis, and the outcome depends heavily on the specific circumstances and the evidence presented at the hearing.
Can the court deny my fee request if I have made mistakes during the litigation?
A court can take your conduct into account — including interference with timesharing, violations of court orders, or failure to communicate — and reduce your fee award accordingly. But the reduction must be connected to specific misconduct that caused identifiable additional legal costs. A court cannot simply deny your entire request based on a general finding of bad behavior without quantifying what that behavior cost. The Levy v. Levy case establishes this point clearly.
Talk to a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group Today
Cases like Levy v. Levy illustrate just how complex — and high-stakes — Florida divorce and family law matters can be. Questions about attorney’s fees, how income is calculated, the impact of third-party financial support, and the consequences of litigation conduct can all dramatically affect your financial outcome and your relationship with your children.
You do not have to navigate these issues alone. At The McKinney Law Group, our team of dedicated Tampa divorce lawyers and Tampa family law attorneys understands what is at stake — for your finances, your family, and your future. We take the time to understand your complete financial picture, advise you on what to expect from the court, and advocate aggressively for a fair outcome on your behalf.
Whether you are at the beginning of a divorce, facing a modification of a custody arrangement, or dealing with a dispute over attorney’s fees, we are here to help. Our experienced Florida divorce attorneys serve clients throughout the Tampa Bay area, including Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco counties.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.