JONATHAN J. MAY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CAROLYN J. MAY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In this family law appeal, the Former Husband challenged the trial court's denial of his alimony modification petition and enforcement of a mediation agreement. The Former Wife cross-appealed, arguing the court failed to reserve jurisdiction on her attorney's fees request. The court affirmed the denial of modification but reversed and remanded to allow the court to enter a corrected order reserving jurisdiction for attorney's fees.
The court affirmed the denial of the Former Husband's modification petition, finding his arguments unpersuasive. The court agreed that the circuit court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction to determine attorney's fees and reversed and remanded for entry of a corrected order reserving such jurisdiction.
[1] A circuit court errs by failing to reserve jurisdiction to determine attorney's fees when a party properly requests them and the court agrees to address the issue at a la…
[2] A corrected order reserving jurisdiction to consider attorney's fees triggers the 30-day period for filing a motion for attorney's fees under Florida Rule of Civil Proced…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Former Wife properly requested attorney's fees in her motion to enforce the mediation agreement. It is clear from our review of the hearing transcript that, at the request of the attorneys for both the Former Husband and the Former Wife, the court agreed to determine the issue of attorney's fees at a later time.”
Establishes that the court had agreed to reserve jurisdiction on attorney's fees but failed to do so in its written order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Mays' thirty-two-year marriage was dissolved on December 17, 2001. Approximately one year later, the Former Wife filed a motion seeking contempt a…
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 For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
The Mays’ thirty-two-year marriage was dissolved on December 17, 2001. About a year later, Carolyn May (the Former Wife) filed a motion seeking to hold Jonathan May (the Former Husband) in contempt and to enforce the final judgment of dissolution. The Former Husband and the Former Wife ultimately entered into a mediation agreement to resolve some of their issues. Sometime later, the Former Husband filed a motion seeking modification of his alimony obligations. The Former Wife, in turn, filed a motion to enforce the mediation agreement. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an extensive order denying the Former Husband’s petition for modification and granting the Former Wife’s motion to enforce from which the Former Husband appeals. We are unpersuaded by the numerous arguments the Former Husband raises and affirm the appeal. We write to address only the issue raised on cross-appeal.
On cross-appeal, the Former Wife claims that the circuit court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees in its order. We agree. The Former Wife properly requested attorney’s fees in her motion to enforce the mediation agreement. It is clear from our review of the hearing transcript that, at the request of the attorneys for both the Former Husband and the Former Wife, the court agreed to determine the issue of attorney’s fees at a later time. The circuit court should have reserved jurisdiction in its order but inadvertently failed to do so. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the court to enter a corrected order reserving jurisdiction to consider the Former Wife’s request for attorney’s fees. See Yangco v. Yangco, 901 So. 2d 217, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).1
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . We note that the Former Wife has not yet filed a motion for attorney’s fees in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, which was in effect at the time the circuit court entered its order. See Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Rule 1.525 requires a party seeking attorney’s fees to serve a motion "within 30 days after filing of the judgment.” The "judgment” that will trigger the Former Wife's right to attorney’s fees will be the corrected order reserving jurisdiction. See McFarland & Son, Inc. v. Basel, 877 So. 2d 964, 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (" '[T]he judgment' referred to in [rule 1.525], must be the judgment under which the party claims the right to costs. In this case, the judgment under which [the appellee] claims costs is the corrected judgment.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flores v. Flores, 82 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…rney’s fees and costs or to reserve jurisdiction to consider the issue, the final judgment should be reversed and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment reserving jurisdiction 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 20…
-
Italiano v. Italiano, 920 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ollect costs because he did not move for fees within 30 days of the original judgment.” Id. at 966 n. 2. Thus, the effect of the “corrected” judgment was to restart the clock for filing a timely motion for fees under rule 1.525. See also May v. May, 908 So. 2d 558, 559 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that entry of a “corrected” judgment on remand would start the clock for filing a timely motion pursuant to rule 1.525). In this case, the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees was untimely as to the final ju…
-
Edwards v. Sullivan, 16 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the trial. Accordingly, the trial court should have included a reservation of jurisdiction in the supplemental final judgment and the omission requires reversal and remand for entry of a corrected supplemental final judgment. See, e.g., May v. May, 908 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We affirm the supplemental final judgment in all respects except for the trial court’s omission of a reservation of jurisdiction to address the father’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. On remand, the trial court shall en…
Authorities Cited
- Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Rolendia Yangco v. Bienvenido Yangco, 901 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- McFARLAND & SON, Inc. v. Royal Mende Basel and Steven Kane, 877 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)