RICHARD E. STRINGER, APPELLANT,

v.

MARY E. GROVE, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …hearing asking the court to make a finding regarding those statements. Secondly, they did not file a motion to clarify whether the court’s conclusion applied to those statements or was limited to those in the letters themselves. Williamson v. Cowan, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding, “[b]ecause Appellant never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing ... the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.”). Also, even if the trial court’s finding did include the sta…
• NEW Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Gray, 177 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
  …King, 66 So. 3d 321, 325-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding, where “Appellants did not file a motion for rehearing asking the court to make a finding regarding [certain] statements,” they failed to preserve the argument). See also Williamson v. Cowan, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding, “[bjecause Appellant never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing ... the issue was not prqperly preserved for appellate review.”). We state once again: When errors appear for the first time i…
• Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
  …ee Peterson v. DeLuca, 936 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A trial court cannot award attorney’s fees without making findings as to one spouse’s ability to pay fees and the other spouse’s need to have the fees paid.”); see also Glass v. Glass, 49 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing fee award where order contained a finding that husband had the ability to pay, but no finding of need on the part of wife). The matter of the additional attorney’s fees is remanded to the trial court, with directions t…