FLOYD MARLAND TYSON
v.
TONYA P. TYSON
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 judgment in a divorce case that determines entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount is non-final and non-appealable.
[1] A judgment determining entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount is non-final and non-appealable, and an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review such a deter…
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 intelligence“[T]he attorney's fee issue is not finally resolved or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and amount have been determined.”
Court explaining the requirement that both entitlement and amount must be determined before attorney's fees issues become appealable.
Floyd Marland Tyson appealed the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Tonya P. Tyson, challenging the trial court's classification of assets for …
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 Attorney'S Fees Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Floyd Marland Tyson appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Appellee Tonya P. Tyson and asserts error in the trial court’s classification of assets for the purpose of equitable distribution. Appellee cross-appeals and challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Appellant. With respect to the issue raised by Appellant, we affirm the final judgment without further discussion. We, however, dismiss Appellee’s cross-appeal because the judgment determines entitlement to attorneys’ fees, but not amount. That portion of the judgment is non-final and non-appealable, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. Miller v. Miller, 801 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Sunrise Air, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 132 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“To the extent appellate review of entitlement to attorneys’ fees is sought, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (citing GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 111 So. 3d 240, 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“‘[T]he attorney’s fee issue is not finally resolved or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and amount have been determined.’”)). AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 801 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Sunrise AIR, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 132 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)