JOSHUA AGRIESTI
v.
VICTORIA AGRIESTI AND JAFE CONTRACTING COMPANY D/B/A/MODERN ELECTRIC
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.
A trial court's order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount is unripe for appellate review and must be dismissed as premature.
[1] An order for attorney's fees that determines entitlement but does not ascertain the amount is unripe for appellate review and must be dismissed as premature.
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“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.”
Court explaining the jurisdictional basis for dismissing the attorney's fees portion of the appeal.
A former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that determined equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorney's f…
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
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; George Odom, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE19- 014324.
Philip L. Schwartz and Vanessa L. Prieto of Law Offices of Philip L. Schwartz, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Pamela M. Gordon of Law Office of Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee Victoria Agriesti. GERBER, J.
The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which determined equitable distribution, child support, and alimony. The former husband argues the circuit court erred in three respects, by: (1) making improper and unsupported equitable distribution findings; (2) making erroneous alimony and child support calculations; and (3) finding the former wife was entitled to an attorney’s fees award against the former husband.
On the first two arguments, we affirm without further discussion. On the third argument, we lack jurisdiction because the circuit court had not determined the fees award amount before the former husband filed this appeal. See Perini v. Perini, 322 So. 3d 124, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“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. Thus, we
2
dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature.”) (citations omitted).
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.