JENNIFER L. ARNSPERGER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
C. BRADY ARNSPERGER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's enforcement of a marital settlement agreement while denying the wife's attorney's fees claim because her motion did not allege default as required by the fee provision.
A marital settlement agreement is enforceable, but attorney's fees cannot be awarded under a default provision when the motion to enforce does not allege default.
[1] Attorney's fees under a marital settlement agreement default provision are not recoverable when the motion to enforce the agreement does not allege default.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Arnsperger sought to enforce a marital settlement agreement against her husband C. Brady Arnsperger and requested attorney's fees based on 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 Breach Of Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Jennifer L. Arnsperger (the Wife) asked the circuit court to enforce the terms of a marital settlement agreement between her and her husband C. Brady Arnsperger (the Husband). The court found the agreement enforceable but declined to award attorney’s fees to the Wife. The Wife’s appeal challenges the court’s failure to award her attorney’s fees. The Husband has cross-appealed, challenging the court’s determination of the validity and enforceability of the agreement. Although the trial court’s findings are somewhat confusing, particularly in light of the ultimate legal conclusions reached, we must nevertheless affirm.
The Wife sought attorney’s fees based on a default provision in the marital settlement agreement. However, the wife’s motion to enforce the agreement did not allege any default, and the trial court’s order determines only the validity of the marital settlement agreement. Therefore, we affirm the denial of fees because the attorney’s fee provision relied on by the Wife does not support her claim.
On the Husband’s cross-appeal, we affirm because our review must be confined to the arguments presented by the cross-appellant in his brief, none of which support a reversal.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.