MARIO G. LARREA, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA LARREA, 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.
The court affirmed the judgment regarding alimony, the marital home, and the appellant's pension, but dismissed the appeal concerning attorney's fees and costs.
[1] An appellate court cannot review evidentiary contentions on appeal without a transcript of the proceedings below.
[2] A trial court's final judgment can be reversed on appeal only if an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment when a transcript is not provided.
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 intelligenceThe appellant challenged provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage concerning alimony, valuation of the marital home and pension, and …
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 Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant and former husband, Mario Larrea, challenges the provisions in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage that relate to alimony, valuation of the marital home, valuation of the appellant’s pension, and attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment as it pertains to the issues of alimony, the marital home, and the appellant’s pension because the appellant has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings below. Without a transcript, we are unable to evaluate these evidentiary contentions raised by the appellant. See Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Furthermore, since we do not find any legal insufficiency on the face of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm the final judgment without further discussion. See Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(stating that when a transcript is not provided with the record on appeal, a trial court’s final judgment can be reversed only if an error of law is apparent on the face of the final judgment).
In the appellant’s final issue on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the appellee and former wife, Linda Larrea. The trial court did not set the amount of the award of attorney’s fees and costs in the final judgment but simply stated that the appellee was entitled to fees and costs.
An order that establishes attorney’s fees and costs, but not the amount of fees and costs, is a nonfinal and nonappealable order. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. See Id. at 1376. See also Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We therefore dismiss the attorney’s fee and cost issue without prejudice so that the appellant may appeal a subsequent final order which sets the amount of fees and costs.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
PATTERSON, C.J., THREADGILL, and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soto v. Soto, 974 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…e how much the Former Husband was actually earning. Because significant errors are apparent on the face of the final judgment, we must reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of the Former Husband’s income. See Larrea v. Larrea, 745 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (finding that when a transcript is not provided in the record on appeal, a trial court’s final judgment can be reversed only if an error is apparent on the face of the final judgment). At that time, the trial court may amend the m…
Authorities Cited
- Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)