ANNA SCHMIDT
v.
STEPHEN SCHMIDT
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.
Anna Schmidt appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to suspend her ex-husband's timesharing and finding her in contempt of the parenting plan, while also challenging the court's award of attorney's fees to the former husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on the first three issues but dismissed the attorney's fees issue as not yet ripe for review.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suspend timesharing, the contempt finding, and the denial of the former wife's attorney's fees request. However, the court dismissed without prejudice the issue regarding the former husband's entitlement to attorney's fees because the trial court determined only entitlement without specifying an amount, making the order non-final and non-appealable.
[1] An order determining a party's entitlement to attorney's fees without specifying the amount to be awarded is a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for appell…
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 intelligence“An order that determines entitlement to attorney's fees without a determination of the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order.”
Court cited Wolf v. Wolf, 296 So. 3d 479, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) to establish the legal standard.
In a family law matter involving a parenting plan and timesharing arrangement, Former Wife (Anna Schmidt) moved to suspend Former Husband's (Stephen S…
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 Motion For Contempt And Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-DR-001222-XXXX-NB.
Ralph T. White of The Law Office of RT White, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.
Jean M. Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for appellee. DAMOORGIAN, J. Anna Schmidt (“Former Wife”) appeals the trial court’s orders denying her Urgent Motion to Suspend Timesharing and granting Stephen Schmidt’s (“Former Husband”) Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment and Parenting Plan. On appeal, Former Wife argues the trial court erred in (1) denying her motion to suspend Former Husband’s timesharing; (2) finding her in contempt of the parenting plan; (3) denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs; and (4) finding Former Husband was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm on the first three issues without further comment. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the issue regarding Former Husband’s entitlement to attorney’s fees as not yet ripe.
Although the trial court found that Former Husband was entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with the motion for contempt, it did not award an amount. An order merely finding entitlement to attorney’s fees is a non-final, non-appealable order. See, e.g., Revier v. Revier, 45 So. 3d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“We dismiss [the] aspect of the final judgment as it relates to the award of attorney’s fees since the trial court determined only entitlement and reserved the determination of amount for a future day.”); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[O]rders granting attorney’s fees without determining amount are not ripe for appellate review.”); Wolf v. Wolf, 296 So. 3d 479, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“An order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees without a determination of the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order.”). Accordingly, we dismiss without prejudice the aspect of the order awarding attorney’s fees. See Anglia Jacs & Co. v. Dubin, 783 So. 2d 1155, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mark, 290 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…h the trial court found that appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees, it has not yet determined the amount of the entitlement. Without that determination, an attorney’s fees award is not ripe for appellate review.” Id.; see also Schmidt v. Schmidt, 319 So. 3d 65, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order merely finding entitlement to attorney’s fees is a non-final, non-appealable order.”); Dania Beach Boat Club Condo. Ass’n v. Forcier, 290 So. 3d 99, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“A finding of entitlement to attorney’s…
-
Alyette Keldie v. Dennstedt, 330 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
Ticktin v. Guardianship of Steven Howard Ticktin (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…r interim judicial review, where he raised issues related to timesharing with his son. Ticktin also appeals the lower court’s ruling on the appellees’ entitlement to attorney’s fees. We dismiss that portion of the appeal. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 319 So. 3d 65, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order merely finding entitlement to attorney’s fees is a non-final, non-appealable order.”). Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * *…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Anglia Jacs & Co., Inc. v. Dubin, 783 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Revier v. Revier, 45 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Avery v. Avery, 296 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)