JANETA FITTERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MONAS F. FITTERMAN A/K/A WAYNE FITTERMAN, 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.
The court held that the order awarding attorney's fees pending appeal was proper and should be affirmed.
In a dissolution case, the trial court entered orders regarding possession and temporary support. The wife appealed these orders. Subsequently, the tr…
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a dissolution of marriage case the trial court entered an order on August 5, 1985, restoring the husband to possession of the marital home and on August 7, 1985, the court entered another order awarding the wife temporary support and fees. From said orders the wife perfected a non-final appeal in case No. 85-1920.
While that appeal was pending the wife sought and received an award of attorney’s fees pending the non-final appeal in case No. 85-1920. From that order the husband filed a new non-final appeal in case No. 85-2310. The wife moved to dismiss the appeal in case No. 85-2310 for lack of jurisdiction. This court ordered that the latter appeal and motion to dismiss be treated as a motion to review an award of attorney’s fees under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c).
We have reviewed the order awarding attorney’s fees and find it proper. Accordingly, that order is affirmed.
The orders of August 5 and August 7, 1985, remain pending in the non-final appeal, case No. 85-1920.
DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randolph v. Randolph, 618 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…es Realty, Inc., 526 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Enforcement of a court’s order does not normally interfere with the appellate court’s power to rule on the appeal. See Greenberg v. Carlisle, 481 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Where it does, a stay is the appropriate device. See Bazzano v. Bazzano, 175 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).…
-
Janeta Fitterman v. Monas F. Fitterman, 502 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
-
Int'l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Cap. Truck, Inc., 872 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…tion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief.” The appeal to this court notwithstanding, until the circuit court or this court imposes a stay on the circuit court’s final order, that order is in effect, and controls. See, e.g., Greenberg v. Carlisle, 481 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Accordingly, a Florida judgment in a separate maintenance action is enforceable in another state under the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, despite a showing that an appeal is being prosecuted from the F…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence