BROWARD F. NOLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY A. NOLIN, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the court affirmed the husband's appeal but found merit in the wife's cross-appeal regarding attorney's fees and costs. The trial court erroneously concluded it lacked jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs after modifying the original award, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court had clear jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs and was required to do so. The modification of the original judgment by the November 3, 1983 order created a new judgment regarding the fee award, making the wife's timely motion for rehearing proper, and the December 7 order denying the rehearing motion based on lack of jurisdiction was erroneous.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs awarded in a dissolution judgment, even after modifying the method of payment.
[2] An order that materially changes a prior award of costs and attorney's fees constitutes a new judgment, triggering a new period for filing a motion for rehearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 clearly had jurisdiction to determine the amount of such fees and costs, and should have done so.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court's jurisdictional conclusion was incorrect and it was obligated to set the fee amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court initially awarded the wife costs and attorney's fees and designated certain of the husband's …
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no merit to any points raised by Broward F. Nolin’s appeal and affirm as to all such issues.
We find merit in Shirley A. Nolin’s cross-appeal with respect to the denial of attorney’s fees and costs because the trial court’s conclusion that it had lost jurisdiction to fix the amount of her fees and costs is incorrect. The original judgment of dissolution entered September 23, 1983, included an award of costs and attorney’s fees to the wife and gave certain of the husband’s property to the wife in satisfaction thereof. The court, however, had not taken any evidence of the value of the services of the wife’s attorney, and this original judgment was the subject of a timely amended motion for rehearing, filed by the husband, which complained of the lack of such evidence. The husband also moved the court to return his property since he could borrow funds necessary to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees. By an order rendered November 3, 1983, the court modified the costs and attorney’s fees award to the wife by returning to the husband the property previously designated for the wife in payment thereof, but made no provision for the amount of such costs and attorney’s fees. Since that order changed the wife’s award of costs and fees in material part, it became a new judgment and the wife thereupon timely filed motion for rehearing as to that order, which was not disposed of until a hearing thereon and the resulting order of December 7, 1983, and which declined to set the amount of costs and attorney’s fees for lack of jurisdiction. Yet the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to determine the amount of such fees and costs, and should have done so.
The order of December 7, 1983, and that portion of the order of November 3, 1983, dealing with the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the value of the wife’s claim and to enter judgment thereon. See Nivens v. Nivens, 312 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Pearce v. Pearce, 363 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Medina v. Medina, 461 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); rule 1.530(a), Fla.R.Civ.P. ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nivens v. Nivens, 312 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Kinne Kohler Pearce v. Pearce, 363 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Wilson v. State, 363 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Medina v. Medina, 461 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)