OLGA PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE PEREZ, 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 trial court abused its discretion by not reserving jurisdiction to determine the wife's entitlement to attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction to determine a party's entitlement to attorney's fees when the issue has been properly raised and e…
[2] A party adequately preserves the issue of attorney's fees by alleging entitlement in a petition and pretrial stipulation.
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 wife alleged entitlement to attorney's fees in her petition and pretrial stipulation. Although the trial court stated it would determine fees post…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Olga Perez, appeals from the final judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court. Appellant’s first four issues relate to the trial court’s determinations on equitable distribution and alimony. This court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm these points without further discussion.
In appellant’s fifth point on appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not reserving jurisdiction in the final judgment to determine whether she was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees from appellee, Jorge Perez. The trial court held that appellant had not presented any evidence during the final hearing that she had incurred fees. The record shows that appellant alleged entitlement to fees in her petition and in the pretrial stipulation. During the final hearing, when appellee’s counsel began to present evidence of his entitlement to attorney’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 determine the wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. The district court reversed and held that the trial court should have reserved juris- ' diction to consider the issue. Similarly, in the instant case, the trial court should have reserved jurisdiction to also determine appellant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees.
This court affirms the final judgment of dissolution except with respect to the failure to reserve jurisdiction to determine appellant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. We remand for a hearing on whether appellant is entitled to attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED part,
FARMER, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singer v. Noreen Singer, 38 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ed retroactively and require repayment. See, e.g., Gale v. Rose, 455 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The trial court also should have reserved jurisdiction to consider the issue of the former husband’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. Perez v. Perez, 846 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (remanded for hearing on attorney’s fees after court deferred consideration of fees at final hearing and then failed to reserve jurisdiction in final order); Harbin v. Harbin, 762 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (trial court shoul…
-
Flores v. Flores, 82 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ion to address the request for attorney’s fees and costs. See May v. May, 908 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Yangco v. Yangco, 901 So. 2d 217, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Singer v. Singer, 38 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Perez v. Perez, 846 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Harbin v. Harbin, 762 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the wife petitioned the court for modification of child support and requested attorney’s fees. Her pretrial statement included a request for fees, and at the hearing she a…
-
Saba Shah v. Ali R. Siddiqui (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…gment should be reversed and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment reserving jurisdiction to address the request for attorney’s fees and costs.”) (citing, inter alia, Singer v. Singer, 38 So. 3d 889, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and Perez v. Perez, 846 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). The instant facts present an even more compelling case for reversal. Here, the circuit court twice addressed the former wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, in both the circuit court’s pre-judgment order on the f…
Authorities Cited
- Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)