ELSA G. LEON, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD PAUL LEON AND E.L. FOODS, INC., A WASHINGTON, D.C. CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 a trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a final judgment while a nonfinal appeal is pending and that awarding rehabilitative alimony was an abuse of discretion without sufficient evidence.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a final judgment while a nonfinal appeal is pending.
[2] A trial court must comply with the specific directives of an appellate court's opinion upon remand.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife filed for dissolution, dismissed it, and the husband refiled. The trial court entered a final judgment while a nonfinal appeal was pending an…
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 Financial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse the final judgment of dissolution. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final judgment while a nonfinal appeal was pending before this court. Connor Realty Inc. v. Ocean Terrace North Condo. Ass’n, 572 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f).
Additionally, the trial court failed to comply with the opinion of this court in Leon v. Leon, 616 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court should conduct the mandated hearing and make findings as to the issues set forth in that opinion.
We also reverse as to the issues of alimony and support. It was an abuse of discretion to award the wife rehabilitative rather than permanent alimony where the evidence does not support a rehabilitative award. See, e.g., Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The wife is a kindergarten teacher earning a net income of $1,961 a month, while the husband is apparently able to take at least $50,000 to 60,000 per year out of a McDonald’s franchise, although the court made no findings as to his present income.
The parties were married in 1977, had two children, and lived together until 1991, at which time the wife filed a petition for dissolution. In 1992, on the date of trial, she dismissed that petition. He refiled this action a month later. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s selection of a valuation date, for the purpose of distribution, as of the date of the wife’s commencing the first proceeding. However, it was error not to allow financial discovery for the period following that date, to the extent such discovery is relevant in determining the husband’s ability to pay alimony and child support. This evidence is patently necessary for the wife to rebut the husband’s affidavit of income and to enable the trial court to make a fully informed decision as to issues of alimony and child support. E.g., Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1993).
As to all other issues, we find no error or abuse of discretion. The final judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seiffert v. Seiffert, 702 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…urt used December 16, 1994 as the date to determine marital assets and liabilities. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in determining the date on which to measure the marital estate. § 61.075(6), [*276] Fla. Stat. (1995); Leon v. Leon, 652 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. WOLF, J., concurs. JOANOS, J., specially concurs in result only.…
-
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 918 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…er these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in denying any amount of permanent periodic alimony. See Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Nelson v. Nelson, 588 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Leon v. Leon, 652 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In addition, as the trial court recognized, this same financial disparity merited an award of attorneys’ fees to the Husband. In light of the uncontradicted testimony that the Husband had incurred $7500 in reasonable attorneys’…
-
Jenine McCORMICK v. Boyd, 693 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…seek unduly burdensome and costly financial disclosure, some disclosure is essential for the trial court to make an informed determination of the appropriate amount of child support. Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1993); see also Leon v. Leon, 652 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (error not to allow financial discovery for period following date of valuation of assets since such discovery is relevant in determining the husband’s ability to pay child support and is “patently necessary for the wife to…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993)
- Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Connor Realty, Inc. v. Ocean Terrace N. Condo. Ass'n, 572 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Galvin v. State, 616 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Leon v. Leon, 616 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)