MICHAEL L. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE F. JOHNSON, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges several rulings made by the trial court in connection with the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. However, the appellant has not shown any error except insofar as the attorney’s fee award for the appellee encompasses services performed after the dissolution order was filed, to the extent that award exceeds the attorney’s fee limitation in the parties’ nuptial agreement. As indicated in Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972), this limitation does not apply to services performed before the dissolution, but services after dissolution are subject to the agreed limitation. See also Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986). This rule is not impacted by more recent decisions such as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2005).
The appealed orders are reversed to the extent indicated herein. The orders are otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.
ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Leons, 948 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…s within fifteen days of their commitment. See, e.g., Dep’t of Children & Families v. Soliman, 947 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (court did not have authority to order release of defendant to personal custody of the Secretary of DCF); Hadi v. L.B., 946 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law by directing DCF to subpoena Secretary of agency); Hadi v. Cordero, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D3051, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 3499149 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 6, 2006) (order requiring DCF to…
-
Fla. Off. OF Ins. Reg. v. Fla. Dep't OF Fin. Servs. for S. Fam. Ins. Co., Atl. Preferred Ins. Co., & Fla. Preferred Prop. Ins. Co. & Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 159 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…people from accepting positions as public servants. See Home, 901 So. 2d at 241; Brooke, 573 So. 2d at 371. See also Miami-Dade County v. Dade County Police Benevolent Ass’n, 103 So. 3d 236, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Hadi v. L.B., B.B., R.B., & E.B., 946 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).. Some state and federal courts refer to this doctrine as the “apex” doctrine, in the context of both high-ranking government and corporate officials. See, e.g.; State ex rel. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 2…
-
Dwain W. Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 52 So. 3d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Annabelle G. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972)
- Hadi B. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005)
- August Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)