JON REDDELL, APPELLANT,
v.
VERONICA REDDELL, 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.
Jon Reddell appeals an order awarding attorney's fees to his former wife Veronica in a dissolution of marriage case. The court reverses because the former wife failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 by not filing a separate motion for attorney's fees within 30 days of the final judgment, despite having requested fees in her petition for dissolution.
A request for fees contained in a petition for dissolution is neither self-effectuating nor sufficient to comply with Rule 1.525. A separate motion for attorney's fees must be filed within 30 days after entry of final judgment, and a reservation of jurisdiction in the final judgment does not operate to enlarge the time in which to file such a motion.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees must be filed within 30 days after the entry of final judgment, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
[2] A reservation of jurisdiction in a final judgment does not enlarge the time within which to file a motion for attorney's fees.
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 rejected the contention that the reservation of jurisdiction in the final judgment operated to enlarge the time within which to file a motion for fees.”
Establishes that retaining jurisdiction does not extend the 30-day filing deadline for motions for attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on March 17, 2003, in which the court found the former wife needed attorney's fees and the f…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Jon A. Reddell, the former husband, appeals an order awarding Verónica Reddell, the former wife, attorney’s fees. We reverse because the former wife failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
The final judgment of dissolution of marriage was filed on 17 March 2003. In it, the court found that the former wife needed an award of attorney’s fees and that the former husband had the ability to pay the former wife’s fees. The court retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fees. In the November 2003 order awarding fees, the court stated that the former husband had moved to strike the motion because it had not been filed within 30 days after the entry of final judgment. The court stated that because the former wife had requested an award of fees and costs in her petition for dissolution of marriage, and because-the court had retained jurisdiction to determine fees in the final judgment, it was not necessary for the former wife to have filed a separate motion for attorney’s fees.
We disagree and reverse.
Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), is dispositive. In Wentworth, this court-affirmed ah order denying attorney’s fees.in a dissolution of marriage case, where the former wife failed to file her motion seeking fees within the 30-day time limit set out in the rule.
We rejected the contention that the reservation of jurisdiction in the final judgment operated to enlarge the time within which to file a motion for fees. Id. at 299.
We stated that rule 1.525 “was designed to establish a bright line to resolve any uncertainty concerning the time of post-trial motion, and to bring them to a timely conclusion.” Id. at 298 (citing Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)).1 Furthermore, we held that a request for fees and costs contained within a complaint or answer simply puts one’s adversary on notice that a claim for fees and costs will be sought at the, conclusion of the case, and that such request is neither self-effectuating nor sufficient in itself to comply with the rule. Id. at 298-299. See also Molloy v. Flood, 884 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
But see Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 874 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we REVERSE the order awarding attorney’s fees.
PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur. . We recognize .that the Florida Supreme Court recently adopted Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525 which provides that Rule 1.525 does not apply in family law proceedings. However, in adopting Rule 12.525, the supreme court expressly provided that "The new rule shall become effective immediately” and did not include any language indicating an intent to apply it retrospectively. See Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1997) (an amendment to a rule of procedure is prospective unless specifically provided otherwise).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…provides otherwise. Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla.1997). Neither the text of rule 12.525 nor the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion adopting [*217] the rule states that it applies retroactively or to pending cases. See Reddell v. Reddell, 900 So. 2d 670 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Hence rule 1.525, which was in effect at the time the circuit court entered the judgment, governs this case. See Natkow, 696 So. 2d at 317 (citing Mendez-Perez v. Perez-Perez, 656 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla.1995)). Mrs. Nicoletti…
-
Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…licts with a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal on the question whether the newly created Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525 should be applied to cases pending on appeal on the effective date of the rule. See Reddell v. Reddell, 900 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The Reddell opinion contains a footnote expressing that court’s view that because the new rule does not include language expressing an intent to apply the rule retrospectively, the-rule would not apply to a case pending on appea…
-
Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…a. 1st DCA 2005), the first district held that the new family rule 12.525 was remedial in nature and was applicable to pending cases, including those on appeal. However, this court has held the rule does not apply retroactively. Reddell v. Red-dell, 900 So. 2d 670, 672 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Since the final judgment here was entered well before the effective date of the new family rule, the civil rule applies to the wife’s motion and she cannot take advantage of the new family rule. Nor can the wife take…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1997)
- Gonzalez v. State, 884 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 874 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)