ANDREW DONALD PERINI
v.
DARCIA CHARLENE PERINI
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.
An order for attorney's fees that determines entitlement but not the amount is unripe for appellate review and must be dismissed as premature.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees that determines entitlement to such fees but fails to ascertain or specify the amount is unripe for appellate review and must be dismiss…
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 for attorney's fees that determines the entitlement but not the amount is unripe for appellate review.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle regarding ripeness of attorney's fees awards
A former husband appealed the trial court's amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The judgment addressed entitlement to attorney's fees b…
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 Ripeness For Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals the trial court’s amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm, without opinion, all issues raised in the former husband’s appeal except the award of attorney’s fees. The trial court’s order determines entitlement to the attorney’s fees but does not ascertain the amount. An order for attorney’s fees that determines the entitlement but not the amount is unripe for appellate review. See Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Thus, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature. See Fredrickson v. Fredrickson, 47 So. 3d 975, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. FORST, KLINGENSMITH, 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
-
Agriesti v. Agriesti (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
-
Valente v. Raissi, 343 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Fredrickson v. Fredrickson, 47 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)