SUE W. WITT, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS W. WITT, 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 trial court erred in denying attorney's fees because it had retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and the appellant prevailed in the enforcement action.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the appellee sought to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a tax refund. The trial court found it lacked jur…
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 To Enforce cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sue Witt appeals from the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees arising out of a post judgment proceeding in a dissolution of marriage action. Appellant argues that the court had jurisdiction under the final judgment of dissolution and was required to award the fees pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. We agree.
Appellee sought recovery of a federal income tax refund check and filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The trial court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction since the subject of the refund check had not been resolved as part of the property settlement in the earlier dissolution action. Appellant filed for attorney’s fees pursuant to a provision in the settlement agreement providing that such fees be awarded to the prevailing party in enforcement actions. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, concluding that neither party had prevailed.
We find no merit in appellee’s argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant attorney’s fees. In the final judgment of dissolution the trial court specifically retained jurisdiction to rule on enforcement actions. Appellee brought such an enforcement action, but lost due to the fact the refund check was not subject to the retained jurisdiction of the trial court. See Steinfeld v. Steinfeld, 553 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (retained jurisdiction of trial court does not include property not specifically addressed in the settlement agreement or final judgment). It is clear appellant prevailed in the action given that appellee failed to obtain a favorable judgment.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a determination and award to appellant of reasonable attorney’s fees.
DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…s for attorney’s fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the contract, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Witt v. Witt, 568 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The husband’s eleventh hour Petition for Modification of his child support and medical expense obligations does not defeat the wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees on her motion for his contempt. In this particular case, the…
-
Robert v. Dean, 655 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…to attorney’s fees is governed only by the contract and that section 61.16, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and the conditions to an award under that statute are therefore irrelevant. Crews v. Crews, 629 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Witt v. Witt, 568 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The amount of these fees shall be determined after remand. Reversed and remanded with directions. . The clause in question provided as follows: 4. b. The proceeds of 1500 stock options (MCI stock) to be given to the Husband as…
-
Trowbridge v. Trowbridge, 674 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…n contemplation of divorce are, in the absence of fraud, coercion, or overreaching, valid and binding on the parties and should be respected by the courts. (citations omitted). See also Dean v. Dean, 655 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Witt v. Witt, 568 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court concluded in its order awarding the wife fees and costs that: As much as the Former Husband would like to view this case otherwise, it is a dissolution of marriage under F.S. Chapter 61. Thus, the fee issue is…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 553 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)