ERIK B. ROMERHAUS, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIA ANN ROMERHAUS, 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 court affirmed in part and reversed in part the final judgment dissolving the marriage, dismissing one issue as nonappealable.
The Former Husband appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage to the Former Wife. The Former Wife conceded an error in child support calculatio…
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 Attorney'S Fees Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Erik B. Romerhaus (the Former Husband) appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Julia Ann Romerhaus (the Former Wife). We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s judgment as it relates to equitable distribution, authority over the children’s welfare, visitation schedules, transportation costs, child care, and matters relating to the foreclosure of marital real estate.
The Former Wife concedes that the trial court erred in including health insurance costs in the Former Husband’s child support calculations and then ordering him to pay one-half of the health insurance premiums as additional child support. This double assessment was error. See § 61.30(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). Thus, on this point, we reverse and remand for correction of the final judgment.
Finally, we dismiss the Former Husband’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that the Former Wife was entitled to attorney’s fees. Because the trial court did not determine the amount of fees, the judgment on this issue is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So.2d 713, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that where trial court decides only entitlement to and not the amount of fees, that portion of the final judgment is nonfi-nal and nonreviewable).
*1144Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shadwick v. Shadwick, 132 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ctual amount of fees that the Husband is obligated to pay, that portion of the amended judgment is a nonfínal, nonreviewable order that is not ripe for appeal. See Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So. 3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Romerhaus v. Romerhaus, 7 So. 3d 1143, 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as premature in part as to the attorney’s fees portion of the amended judgment. See Zuberer, 28 So. 3d at 993; Romerhaus, 7 So. 3d at 1143. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. NORT…
Authorities Cited
- Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)