ALLEN J. SEYMOUR, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELE L. SEYMOUR, APPELLEE
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The husband raises three issues in his appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm on the first two issues and deny review of the third issue.
As to the first and second issues raised by the appellant, we believe the trial court’s conclusions were supported by its findings of fact.
The third issue challenges that part of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which states that the wife is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. The judgement does not set the amount of such fees. Recently, this court aligned itself with the other district courts of appeal, adopting the rule that an order which only determines the right to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable nonfinal order. Mcllveen v. Mcllveen, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part and review denied in part.
THREADGILL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duchesneau v. Duchesneau, 692 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…lizes the residence as a home for either of the minor children, aged 9 and 4 at the time of the dissolution. An order which determines the right to attorney’s fees, without setting an amount, is a nonappealable, non-final order. Seymour v. Seymour, 661 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Pitone v. Pitone, 585 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Hurtado v. Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However, this appeal involves a challenge to the validity of the reservation itself,1 since it does not specifically de…
-
Brock v. Voncile Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…half, rather than all, of the attorney’s fees incurred by her. Although the order under review does award fees, it does not fix a specific amount. This issue is therefore not properly before this court in the instant appeal. See Seymour v. Seymour, 661 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, the order of modification is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Waggoner v. Waggoner, 780 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…of that property as a marital asset. We affirm, without discussion, as to all remaining issues raised by the parties [*1034] except that challenging the award of attorney’s fees, which is a non-appealable non-final order. E.g., Seymour v. Seymour, 661 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, we note that, because it appears that treating only any enhancement in value or appreciation of the Whisper Bay property as a marital asset will result in a grossly disproportionate distribution of the parties’ marital a…
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
- McILVEEN v. McILVEEN, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)