W. RONALD MCILVEEN, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA O. MCILVEEN, 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 a divorce case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution and alimony determinations but reversed the requirement that the husband provide unlimited health insurance to the wife, ordering the trial court to impose reasonable cost limitations. The court also declined jurisdiction to review the attorney's fees entitlement issue.
The trial court made sufficient findings to support equitable distribution and alimony determinations. The husband's obligation to provide health insurance must be subject to reasonable cost limitations. The court lacks jurisdiction to review the attorney's fees entitlement issue because an order determining the right to fees without setting the amount is nonappealable and nonfinal.
[1] An order that determines the right to attorney's fees but does not set the amount is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.
[2] An obligation to provide medical insurance may be subject to reasonable limitations as to the maximum cost to the obligor.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“his insurance obligation should be subject to reasonable limitations as to the maximum cost to the husband”
Establishes the court's holding that the husband's health insurance obligation must have reasonable cost caps
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court determined equitable distribution of assets, awarded alimony, r…
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
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The husband raises three issues in his appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm except in two respects.
We reject the husband’s argument that the trial court failed to make sufficient and specific findings of fact to support .its determinations as to equitable distribution, alimony, and the obligation of the husband to provide the wife with medical, dental, and ocular insurance, including psychological and psychiatric coverage.
However, we agree with the husband (and the wife concedes) that his insurance obligation should be subject to reasonable limitations as to the maximum cost to the husband. Therefore, we reverse that part of the final judgment regarding the husband’s obligation to provide health insurance to the wife with directions that the trial court fix reasonable limitations on the maximum cost to the husband of that requirement.
The husband attacks on several grounds the trial court’s determination that the wife is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. We agree with the husband that the trial court should not have determined entitlement to fees in the final judgment when the order on pretrial conference expressly provided that all issues regarding attorney’s fees would be determined at a hearing subsequent to the final judgment. However, we lack jurisdiction to review the issue of entitlement and deny review of that issue. We align ourselves with the other district courts of appeal, which have held that an order which only determines the right to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a nonap-pealable, nonfinal order. See Gonzalez Engineering, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Trans Atlantic Distributors, L.P. v. Whiland & Co., S.A, 646 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accord Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, 543 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (where the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to make an award of attorney’s fees, the issue is premature and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review it).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART WITH DIRECTIONS, AND REVIEW DENIED IN PART.
PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…from him toward her attorney’s fees and costs. The final judgment merely establishes the wife’s entitlement to fees; it does not set the amount of the fees and costs. This portion of the judgment is nonfinal and nonappealable. McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We lack jurisdiction to review the issue of entitlement, and, accordingly, deny review of this point on appeal. [*1377] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, review denied in part, and remanded. THREADGILL, C.J., and QUINCE, J., c…
-
Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…eview, should not have determined the amount of the fee award when the trial court expressly provided in its prior order that it would set the matter for a hearing if it determined that the Former Wife was entitled to an award. McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Moreover, absent a stipulation by the parties, the reasonableness and the necessity of the fee sought should have been determined at a hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the Former Husband’s mot…
-
Suzzann Evans Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…garding entitlement, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees to be awarded. Because the amount has not been determined, that portion of the amended final judgment is nonfinal and nonappealable. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that an order that determines only the right to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a nonap-pealable, nonfinal order); see also Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So. 3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirming the am…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Gonzalez Eng'g, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., Inc., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, 543 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Trans Atl. Distribs., L.P. v. Whiland & Co., S.A., 646 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)