SCOTT JAY FEDER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMIE RICHMAN FEDER, 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 held that the prior appellate ruling on entitlement to attorney's fees established the law of the case, and no manifest injustice warranted revisiting it.
[1] A prior appellate ruling establishing entitlement to attorney's fees constitutes the law of the case.
[2] The law of the case doctrine is subject to a manifest injustice exception.
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 intelligenceFollowing a dissolution of marriage, the appellate court affirmed the judgment and remanded for determination of attorney's fees. The trial court awar…
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 Manifest Injustice Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a final judgment awarding appellate attorney’s fees. We affirm.
The underlying proceeding was for dissolution of marriage. The trial court entered judgment and the appellant former husband appealed. This court affirmed without opinion. Feder v. Feder, 922 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). By unpublished order, this court granted the appellee former wife’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees, and remanded to the trial court to fix the amount. This court denied the former husband’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees.
On remand, the former husband conducted discovery regarding the attorney’s fee request. At the attorney’s fee hearing, the former husband argued that he should not have to pay much, if any, of the former wife’s attorney’s fees. The trial court correctly ruled that the issue of entitlement had already been decided by this court. See Randall v. Randall, 930 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and entered an attorney’s fee judgment. The former husband has appealed.
The former husband asks this court to revisit its earlier order granting appellate attorney’s fees to the former wife. This court’s ruling in the prior appeal established the law of the case. Barrero v. *235 Ocean Bank, 729 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
However, Florida recognizes a manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine. Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 106 (Fla.2001); Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1965). The former husband contends that a manifest injustice has been occasioned with respect to this attorney’s fee award.
After review of the parties’ respective motions for appellate attorney’s fees and response filed in the prior appeal, it is clear that the former husband’s arguments advanced in this appeal simply reiterate matters raised by the parties in the last appeal. We are not convinced that any manifest injustice has been shown, and adhere to the law of the case established on the last appeal. We affirm on the remaining issues without discussion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…s Court. The narrow exception to this rule is where there is a showing of manifest injustice, which occurs only where the merits have not been considered or where there has been an intervening decision by a higher court. See Brunner; Feder v. Feder, 41 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The record does not contain any evidence of such manifest injustice. As this Court cannot rehear the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees contrary to its own mandate in the prior appeal, see Brunner, we affirm the judgments…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Barrero v. Ocean Bank, 729 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Randall v. Randall, 930 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)