NOREEN SINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY RUSSELL SINGER, 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 trial court erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction for attorney's fees and that an order not determining a fee amount is not ripe for review.
[1] A trial court errs by failing to reserve jurisdiction to consider attorney's fees when it has expressed an intention to do so and the parties have not objected.
[2] An appellate court will decline to address an award of attorney's fees when the trial court has not set an amount, rendering the issue unripe for review.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former wife challenged post-dissolution orders regarding attorney's fees. The trial court denied her motion for fees without reserving jurisdictio…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Noreen Singer (“the former wife”) challenges two orders entered in post-dissolution proceedings in favor of Jay Singer (“the former husband”). We reverse in part and affirm in part.
First, the trial court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction in the final order to consider the former wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. The former wife filed a verified motion seeking to have the former husband held in contempt, among numerous other requested forms of relief, including attorney’s fees. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court clearly indicated that it was reserving ruling on attorney’s fees until a later date and after another hearing. However, the trial court entered an order denying the former wife’s motion without reserving jurisdiction to consider attorney’s fees. Such an omission was erroneous where the trial court expressed an intention to reserve ruling and the parties did not object to the reservation. See, e.g., Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So.3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (finding error in trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees “where the court and the parties had agreed that all issues pertaining to the wife’s request for fees would be reserved and heard at a subsequent hearing”). Consequently, we remand for a hearing on whether the former wife is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Next, we decline to address the portion of the other order on appeal determining the former husband’s entitlement to attorney’s fees because the order does not determine an amount of fees. See Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, *155137 So.3d 487, 488 (Fla. 4th DGA 2014) (“We decline to address the portion of the appeal challenging the award of attorneys’ fees as the trial court did not set an amount of fees; thus, the issue is not ripe for review.”).
Finally, we find the remaining issues raised by the former wife to be without merit and we affirm without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in pari, and remanded.
Ciklin, C.J., Damoorgian and Gerber, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephanos v. Stephanos (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
-
Noreen Singer v. Singer (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…95) (“Singer I”); Singer v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Singer II”); Singer v. Singer, 706 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Singer III”); Singer v. Singer, 38 So. 3d 889, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Singer IV”); Singer v. Singer, 211 So. 3d 154, 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Singer V”); Singer v. Singer, 219 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Singer VI”); and Singer v. Singer, 278 So. 3d 79, 80-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Singer VII”). request for overpayment of alimony and attorney’s fees.” Sin…
-
Stephanos v. Stephanos (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…former wife’s second issue, she argues the trial court erred by determining that the former husband is entitled to attorneys’ fees. This issue is not ripe for review because the trial court has not yet set an amount of fees. See Singer v. Singer, 211 So. 3d 154, 154-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur. WARNER, J., dissents with opinion. WARNER, J., dissenting. The former wife shou…
Authorities Cited
- Yolimar Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- ARCH Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, 137 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)