SUSAN ELAINE SEIGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT ERIC SEIGEL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed custody modification but remanded for trial court to consider mother's request for attorney's fees and costs, which should have been reserved for separate hearing.
A trial court must reserve jurisdiction to consider a party's timely request for attorney's fees and costs in family law modification proceedings, even if evidence on that issue was not presented at the modification hearing.
[1] A trial court must reserve jurisdiction to consider a timely request for attorney's fees and costs in family law modification proceedings, and a timely application for su…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The application for attorney's fees and costs implicitly carried with it a request for a separate hearing on the amount of attorney's fees and costs in the event that the court ruled that she was entitled to such fees and costs at the final hearing.”
Explaining that a timely request for attorney's fees carries an implicit request for a separate hearing on the amount of fees.
Former spouses Susan and Scott Seigel each had primary residential custody of one child and filed competing modification petitions for custody of the …
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Former spouses Susan and Scott Seigel, each of whom had primary residential custody of one of their children, each filed modification petitions seeking custody of the other child. Ms. Seigel challenges the order granting Mr. Seigel’s petition for modification, and the trial court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the modification of custody without discussion, but remand for the court to consider Ms. Seigel’s application for attorney’s fees and costs.
Ms. Seigel requested attorney’s fees and costs in her supplemental complaint, in which she petitioned for primary residential custody of the parties’ older daughter. Her timely filed motion for rehearing also asked the court to award her attorney’s fees and costs. Although Ms. Seigel did not present evidence on the attorney’s fees and costs issue at the hearing in the modification proceedings, the trial court should have reserved jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Meyer v. Meyer, 525 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The' application for attorney’s fees and costs implicitly carried with it a request for a separate hearing on the amount of attorney’s fees and costs in the event that the court ruled that she was entitled to such fees and costs at the final hearing. 510 So. 2d at 1024. We note that the financial affidavits filed in this matter reflect that Mr. Seigel’s gross income is significantly greater than Ms. Seigel’s.
Affirmed in part, remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 846 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ey’s fees, the trial court stated that it would determine them post-trial. Then in its final judgment, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to resolve appellee’s request for attorney’s fees but denied appellant’s application. In Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), both spouses filed petitions for modification of custody. The wife requested fees in her petition but did not present any evidence on fees at the modification hearing. In its order the trial court did not reserve jurisdiction to…
-
Shepard D. Osherow v. Osherow, 727 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…v. Sottile, 551 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990), or by arguing, in her pending appeal of adverse orders, that the trial court erred in failing to retain jurisdiction over her fee request, see Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Evans v. Evans, 801 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…she did not put on evidence at the final hearing as to the amount of her attorney’s and accountant’s fees. She did, however, seek them in her pleading as well as in opening statement and closing argument. As the court explained in Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998): The application for attorney’s fees and costs implicitly carried with it a request for a separate hearing on the amount of attorney’s fees and costs in the event that the court ruled that she was entitled to such fees and…
Authorities Cited
- Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 525 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)