MARGARET KIRCHHEINER, APPELLANT,
v.
OTTO VON KIRCHHEINER, 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.
In this Florida divorce appeal, Margaret Kirchheiner challenged the trial court's awards of rehabilitative alimony, medical expense coverage, and attorney fees, as well as the court's refusal to rule on her claim for unpaid medical bills incurred during the marriage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the alimony and attorney fee awards and deferring the medical expenses issue as premature.
The appellate court held that no reversible error was demonstrated regarding the alimony and attorney fee awards. Additionally, the court held that the medical expenses issue was not properly before the appellate court at this time because the trial court merely deferred ruling and retained jurisdiction rather than denying the claim.
[1] A trial court's retention of jurisdiction allows for future decisive action on issues not yet substantively determined.
[2] An appellate court will not substantively determine an issue that the trial court has not yet ruled upon, even if the parties have argued its merits.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 judge refused to act on this issue noting that the parties might be able to reach their own solution in this regard. The court did, however, retain further jurisdiction of the cause.”
Explains the trial court's rationale for deferring the medical expenses issue without rendering a final decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe marriage between Margaret Kirchheiner (appellant/wife) and Otto Von Kirchheiner (appellee/husband) was dissolved upon the wife's petition. The tri…
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 Medical Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
The marriage between the appellant and appellee was dissolved upon the petition of the appellant wife. She was also awarded $25.00 per week rehabilitative alimony for a period of three months. The appel-lee was required to pay reasonable medical expenses for appellant for a period of three months and attorney fees in the sum of $450.00 for her attorney, plus costs.
The court stated in the final judgment that it would not make any ruling on the wife’s demand that the husband pay and be responsible for the wife’s unpaid medical bills incurred during their marriage. However, the court retained jurisdiction of the action to enter further orders as are proper.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding her only $25.00 per week rehabilitative alimony and medical care for only three months. She likewise seeks review of the award of attorney fees on the ground that the amount of the award was inadequate.
We have considered these contentions in the light of the record and controlling principles of law and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated as to these contentions.
The appellant has also assigned as error the refusal of the trial judge to rule on whether she is entitled to an award from the husband for medical expenses incurred by her during the marriage. Both parties have argued the merits of the issue, presuming that the trial judge’s action was a denial of appellant’s claim for these expenses. We feel such arguments are premature at this time. The trial judge refused to act on this issue noting that the parties might be able to reach their own solu-tiqn in this regard. The court did, however, retain further jurisdiction of the cause. Tt is our opinion that this issue is not now properly before us. Until the trial judge has had the occasion to go to the merits of the issue and to take a decisive action on the matter, there is no action by the trial court that is the proper subject of our appellate scrutiny and we will not substantively determine the issue as a court of original jurisdiction. The retention of jurisdiction by the trial court would allow a decisive action upon the issue if the same is properly presented to it.
No reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warriner v. Ramirez, 280 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…t did not make an alternative ruling on the motion for new trial as she did in Cunningham v. Romano, Fla.App.1973, 278 So. 2d 631, (opinion filed April 10, 1973; opinion on rehearing filed June 5, 1973). . Kirchheiner v. Kirchheiner, Fla.App. 1973, 278 So. 2d 639, (opinion filed June 5, 1973).…