JAMES W. CHURCH, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPHINE CHURCH, 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.
James Church appeals a dissolution of marriage judgment that awarded his former wife Josephine exclusive use of the marital residence, required him to pay her college expenses and alimony, and ordered him to pay $3,100 in her attorneys' fees. The court reversed the award of exclusive residence occupancy due to lack of special equity, voided the attorneys' fees order due to lack of jurisdiction, and affirmed other provisions.
The award of exclusive residence occupancy to Josephine was reversed because absent an agreement or special equity, such exclusive possession cannot be awarded when all children are adults. The attorneys' fees order was voided because the final judgment failed to reserve jurisdiction for a subsequent fees determination, leaving the chancellor without authority to enter the subsequent order. All other provisions of the judgment were affirmed.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees in a subsequent order if the final judgment fails to reserve jurisdiction over that matter.
[2] Awarding exclusive possession of the marital residence to a spouse is error in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a finding of a special equity, especiall…
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 intelligence“the final judgment failed to reserve jurisdiction with respect to this matter. Therefore, the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to enter a subsequent order awarding attorneys' fees.”
Establishes the basis for voiding the attorneys' fees order—lack of reserved jurisdiction in the final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Josephine Church's marriage was dissolved pursuant to a settlement agreement providing that assets be evenly divided, Josephine retain exclu…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals petitioner, James Church, appeals those provisions of a final dissolution of marriage judgment awarding various benefits to his former wife, Josephine, and ordering him to send his adult children to college and a subsequent order directing that he pay $3,100 in attorneys’ fees.
The marriage between Josephine and James was dissolved, and the judgment recited an agreement between the parties which provided that (1) all assets owned by the parties shall be evenly divided; (2) Josephine retain exclusive use and possession of the marital domicile until such time as their youngest child moves out or vacates the premises; (3) James pay $100 per week alimony; (4) James pay the children’s college expenses and continue medical insurance coverage on them. Thereafter, upon Josephine’s motion for attorneys’ fees, an order was entered directing James to pay $3,100 of the $4,100 awarded to her attorneys. Subsequently, James filed a motion to correct the record and at a hearing the chancellor found that James had never consented to give Josephine exclusive use of the marital residence and ordered that the record be corrected to reflect this fact. These appeals from the final judgment and order on attorneys’ fees followed.
We first concerned ourselves with the interlocutory appeal from the order directing that James pay $3,100 of the $4,100 in fees awarded to Josephine’s attorneys. We find the order awarding attorneys’ fees to be void in that although the chancellor and the parties at this dissolution hearing agreed that attorneys’ fees would be allowed at a subsequent date, the final judgment failed to reserve jurisdiction with respect to this matter. Therefore, the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to enter a subsequent order awarding attorneys’ fees. See Frumkes v. Frumkes, Fla.App.1976, 328 So. 2d 34.
As to the plenary appeal from the final judgment, James first contends that the chancellor erred in awarding Josephine exclusive occupancy and use of the marital residence. We find this point well taken.
All the children born of their marriage have attained the age of majority and in the absence of an agreement between the parties or of the finding of a special equity, it was error to award exclusive possession of the residence to Josephine. See Saviteer v. McAdoo, Fla.App.1975, 310 So. 2d 28. This provision of the judgment is reversed.
After a review of the remaining points on appeal, we conclude no reversible error has been made to appear. Thus, the final judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)…must be limited to the home, that it benefit only a spouse with minor children, and that it must terminate when all children born of the marriage have attained the age of majority. McDonald v. McDonald. In so holding, we disapprove Church v. Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Watson v. Watson, 324 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Ranes v. Ranes; and Saviteer v. McAdoo. An award of exclusive use of property must be determined by the equity of the cause and should be for a specified period. It is always…
-
Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…thout jurisdiction to make an award of fees and costs after final judgment in the absence of a reservation of jurisdiction. Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); McCallum v. McCallum, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Church v. Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The issue of whether the trial court has reserved jurisdiction is totally separate from the issue of whether, having reserved it, its jurisdiction is divested by a pending app…
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti, 427 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…ard of attorney’s fees or costs shall become a part of the judgment and subject to execution as the law allows. [*1072] Appellant argues that a reservation of jurisdiction is invalid unless made in the final judgment itself, citing Church v. Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). While those dissolution of marriage cases and others cited by appellant do require that a court reserve jurisdiction to make later awards of attorney’s fees, they do not h…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Melvyn B. Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Saviteer v. McADOO, 310 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)