VINCENT P. MIRAGLIA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE DWIGHT L. GEIGER, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
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.
A trial court loses jurisdiction to award attorney's fees in a domestic relations case when the final judgment contains no reservation of jurisdiction over that issue, and a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent the court from proceeding.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney's fees in a post-judgment domestic relations case when the final order determining custody, property, visitation, and related issues contains no reservation of jurisdiction over attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to award attorney's fees in a domestic relations case when the final judgment does not reserve jurisdiction over that issue.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a post-judgment domestic relations case, the wife moved for an award of attorney's fees after a final order had been entered determining custody, p…
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 Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks to prohibit the trial court from proceeding to consider the wife’s motion to award her attorney’s fees in a post-judgment domestic relations case. The petitioner contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the motion because the order determining the various issues of custody, possession of property, visitation, etc., had become final and the order contained no reservation of jurisdiction to determine the question of attorney’s fees. Under these circumstances the cases are clear that the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider an application for an allowance of attorney’s fees. Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Jackson v. Jackson, 390 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); McCallum v. McCallum, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Church v. Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s motion for allowance of attorney’s fees, thus indicating its intention to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction, which justifies our issuance of a writ of prohibition. See Haft-Gaines Company v. Reddick, 350 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Accordingly, Writ of Prohibition is issued and the trial court is prohibited from proceeding further in this cause on the motion for allowance of attorney’s fee for the wife.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. HURLEY, J., dissents with opinion.
HURLEY, Judge,
dissenting:
I would deny the petition for writ of prohibition for procedural reasons. In my view, the petitioner has an appropriate and adequate legal remedy through plenary appeal and, thus, prohibition is inappropriate. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levy v. Levy, 483 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…or the extensive post-judgment efforts of counsel in the interpretation and enforcement of the final judgment1 because the trial court did not specifically reserve jurisdiction to do so in the post-judgment orders themselves. See Miraglia v. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). On the singular facts of this case, we are compelled to disagree. The January 5, 1983 final judgment reserves jurisdiction to hear and consider all matters relative to attorneys’ fees and costs and ... to enforce the provision…
-
Shepard D. Osherow v. Osherow, 727 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…serving jurisdiction over the fee request, and the time for moving to amend under Rule 12.530, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (incorporating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530), had expired. We grant the petition. See Miraglia v. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (granting prohibition relief and noting that “[ujnder these circumstances the cases are clear that the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider an application for an' allowance of attorney’s fees”), and cases cited therein; Fri…
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. The Honorable Edward N. Moore, 481 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…urt wholly lacked authority to award them. In re Fredcris, Inc., 108 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Accordingly, we grant the instant petition for prohibition precluding the lower court from further proceedings in the matter. See Miraglia v. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Prohibition granted.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Melvyn B. Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- James W. Church v. Josephine Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 390 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- McCALLUM v. McCALLUM, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Haft-Gaines Co. v. The Honorable Thomas J. Reddick, 350 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)