LINDA GAIL MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD G. MILLER, 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 this post-judgment family law appeal, the former wife challenges the circuit court's order terminating the former husband's alimony obligation and complains that the court failed to rule on her counterpetition for college expense reimbursements. The court affirmed the alimony termination but remanded for the circuit court to enter an order on the counterpetition.
The court affirmed the circuit court's termination of alimony. However, the court could not address the counterpetition on appeal because the circuit court had not issued a ruling on it, so the case was remanded for the circuit court to enter an order disposing of the counterpetition.
[1] A circuit court's order terminating alimony will be affirmed if supported by the law.
[2] An appellate court cannot address an issue that has not been ruled upon by the circuit court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We cannot address on appeal an issue not ruled upon by the circuit court.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation that appellate courts cannot review issues on which the trial court has not made a ruling
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were former spouses involved in post-judgment litigation. The former husband petitioned to terminate his alimony obligation. The former wi…
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 Alimony Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
This appeal arises from postjudgment litigation in which the former husband petitioned for the termination of his alimony obligation. The former wife filed a counter-petition for reimbursements under a stipulated provision of the parties’ divorce judgment which obligated the former husband to pay the children’s college expenses. The former wife appeals the circuit court’s order terminating the alimony. We affirm on that issue. See McManus v. McManus, 638 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Townsend v. Townsend, 585 So. 2d 468, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Withers v. Withers, 390 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The former wife also complains that the circuit court failed to enter an order on her eounterpetition. Although she has couched the issue as one involving error in failing to rule, both parties have briefed the merits of the former wife’s entitlement .to the reimbursements as if the circuit court had denied the counterpetition on the merits. The parties litigated the counterpetition at the final hearing, and we suspect that its omission from the order under review was an oversight. But neither party brought the oversight to the circuit court’s attention. On the face of the record before us, the former wife’s counterpetition remains pending. We cannot address on appeal an issue not ruled upon by the circuit court. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla.1992); Sierra v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 661 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Therefore, we remand for the circuit court’s entry of an order disposing of the former wife’s counter-petition.
Affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2008)…Thus, the failure of the trial court to rule on the motion to depose after the conclusion of the rule 3.850 proceeding was likely a mere oversight, which supports that the trial court should be directed to rule on this motion. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for the trial court’s disposition of a pending counterpetition after concluding “that its omission from the order under review was an oversight ” (emphasis added)). For any future appeal, the lack of an order on…
-
Bland v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. OF Am., 927 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…this argument in a trial court memorandum opposing HCR’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.2 She did not advance this argument at the motion hearing, however. Consequently, the trial court did not rule on the issue.. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding court cannot address on appeal appellant’s issue not ruled upon by trial-court); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 8.1, at 144 (2006 ed.). Despite the absence of a specific ruling, we are, nonetheless,…
-
Rhea v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Santa FE Coll., 109 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…the e-mail in question” and the court did not rule on the broader request for disclosure of any other student complaints made about Rhea, we confine our discussion to the redacted student e-mail addressed in the trial court. [*859] Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)
- Stach v. Bartsch, 390 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Sierra v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 661 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Candy J. Townsend v. Townsend, 585 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Woodall v. State, 638 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- McMANUS v. McMANUS, 638 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)