RICHARD G. ALLEN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
VALERIE ALLEN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 2d DCA | 1998-05-20
No. 97-03883
BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.
711 So. 2d 614 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1998)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in determining entitlement to attorney's fees without a hearing, contrary to the parties' stipulation.


Facts & Procedural History

The parties stipulated that the trial court would retain jurisdiction for a later hearing on attorney's fees. The trial court nevertheless determined …

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.


Opinion of the Court
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Valerie Allen (wife) and Richard G. Allen (husband) each challenge the final judgment of dissolution of their marriage. We affirm on all issues except that regarding attorney’s fees.

The trial court determined that the wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, and it reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. Normally, an order establishing entitlement to, but not the amount of, attorney’s fees is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The distinguishing factor in the present case is that the parties stipulated at the beginning of the final hearing that the court would retain jurisdiction for a later hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, no argument was advanced or testimony taken regarding the fee issue at the final hearing. Thus, the husband received an adverse ruling on entitlement without notice that the issue was going to be determined. This unilateral decision by the trial court as to entitlement was error in light of the parties’ prior stipulation.

Accordingly, we reverse the determination that the wife was entitled to attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for a full hearing on all aspects of the attorney’s fee issue. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw