MARION L. WINNER, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA G. WINNER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves post-judgment motions in a domestic relations dispute where the trial court awarded costs, attorney's fees, and held the appellant in contempt. The appellate court reversed all three orders, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award appellate attorney's fees and failed to provide proper notice for the costs award.
The court reversed all three orders. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for appellate services, which must be pursued under appellate procedure rules. The costs award was improper due to lack of notice and hearing. The contempt order was erroneous as it was based on the invalid costs award.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to award attorney's fees for services rendered in an appellate court.
[2] The proper method to secure attorney's fees for appellate services is pursuant to Rule 9.400(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court lacked jurisdiction to award a fee for services rendered in this court. The proper method to secure such fees is pursuant to Rule 9.400(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Establishes that trial courts cannot award appellate attorney's fees; such fees must be pursued through appellate procedure rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the pendency of a prior appeal in a domestic relations matter, the trial court entered three orders: one requiring the appellant to pay $1,731.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
During the pendency of a prior appeal between these parties [see: Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845 (Fla.3d DCA 1979)], the trial court, entered three orders which are the subject matter of this appeal. One required the appellant to pay $1,731.00 as costs expended by the appellee in the defense of the original final judgment in proceedings in a foreign state. It also required the appellant to pay $3,400.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees for appellate work in the prior appeal. The second order found the appellant in contempt for failure to pay the $1,731.00, and the third order was, in fact, a final judgment awarding to the wife $3,400.00 in attorney’s fees, $16,000.00 due the wife in lieu of the diamonds referred to in the earlier opinion, costs, and additional attorney’s fees. We reverse all three orders.
As to the first order, we reverse so much of same which awarded costs of $1,731.00 because no prior notice of the hearing or pleading claiming such was served on the appellant. We reverse that portion of the order awarding $3,400.00 as appellate attorney’s fees because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award a fee for services rendered in this court. The proper method to secure such fees is pursuant to Rule 9.400(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellee contends that these fees were justified because this is a domestic relations matter and they are provided for in Rule 9.600(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We disagree. The attorney’s fees and suit money provided for in this latter rule are those that might be incurred in a trial court in enforcing the provisions of a final judgment, contrasted to services rendered in representing a party in an appellate process.
As to the order holding the appellant in contempt for failing to pay the $1,731.00 in costs, because of what is said above this order is obviously erroneous and will be reversed. The last order, the final judgment for the amounts found to be due the appellee, is reversed because the appellee lost the $16,-000.00 in lieu of the diamonds pursuant to the prior opinion in this cause [see: Winner v. Winner, supra], and this opinion has above set aside the $3,400.00 in attorney’s fees. The other costs and attorney’s fees, contained in this order, necessarily fall.
Therefore, the order recorded January 25, 1979, awarding $1,731.00 as costs and $3,400.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees, be and the same is hereby reversed and remanded to the trial court to consider the award of costs upon an appropriate petition and notice. The order of contempt recorded February 16, 1979 be and the same is hereby set aside and reversed. The final judgment recorded February 16, 1979 be and the same is hereby set aside and reversed.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…t and committing him to jail because, quite understandably, he was unable to meet the requirements of the final judgment. These orders are reversed (a) because of our reversal, supra, of those provisions of the judgment itself, see Winner v. Winner, 376 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and (b) because neither order contains, and the record of course does not justify, the determination required by Faircloth v. Fair-cloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976) to support a finding of contempt. See also Hammond v. Sandstrom,…
-
Gieseke v. Haydee Gieseke, 499 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…er, we reverse. In order to obtain fees and costs for the preparation of an appeal, a litigant must first request the fees from the appellate court. Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b). Thornton v. Thornton, 433 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Winner v. Winner, 376 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Mullins v. Mullins, 342 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Ludemann v. Ludemann, 317 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). “The question of whether to award attorney’s fees for services on appeal in domestic litigation is a prerogative of…
-
Travelers Indem. Co. OF Am. v. Morris, 390 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…o. 2d 911, 916 (Fla.1954). Second, since we did not remand the issue to the lower tribunal as permitted by Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for services related 2 to the earlier appeal.3 See, Winner v. Winner, 376 So. 2d 924 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The order below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to deny the appellee’s motion for additional fees. Reversed. . Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4). . Proceedings, such as those involved here, for t…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)