SHELIA MCCALLUM, APPELLANT,
v.
RODNEY H. MCCALLUM, 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.
Wife's request for attorneys' fees in a post-decretal modification proceeding was properly denied because she failed to include the request in her petition for modification and filed the motion after the time for rehearing and appeal had expired.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees in a post-decretal domestic relations matter when the request is not included in the underlying petition and is filed after the time for rehearing and appeal has expired.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees in a post-decretal domestic relations matter when the request is not timely included in the underlying motion or…
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 intelligenceThe marriage was dissolved by final judgment on January 20, 1976. The wife filed a petition for modification on an unspecified date but did not reques…
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 Domestic Relations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves the denial of the appellant/wife’s request for attorneys’ fees in a post-decretal domestic relations matter. The marriage was dissolved by final judgment of January 20, 1976. Subsequent thereto the wife filed a petition for modification but did not include in said petition a request for attorneys’ fees. The Court ruled on the petition for modification by order of April 4, 1977, and on August 5, 1977, the appellant/wife filed a motion to tax attorneys’ fees and costs. The motion for attorneys’ fees was filed after the rehearing and appeal time had run on the order entered granting the petition for modification.
The trial court eventually dismissed the wife’s request for attorneys’ fees with prejudice.
We find the trial court to have been completely correct in doing so. See, Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Reardon v. Reardon, 355 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Appellant argues that a reservation of jurisdiction regarding attorneys’ fees was contained in the initial final judgment and that this reservation requires a different result. This argument is without merit since the reservation in the initial final judgment related to past attorneys’ fees rather than future attorneys’ fees. Indeed, attorneys’ fees were eventually taxed for the services rendered on the securing of the final judgment of dissolution. The fees in question here relate to post-decretal matters only, and the absence of a request for the fees left the Court without jurisdiction to order same. The order below is therefore affirmed.
LETTS, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Finkelstein v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 484 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1986)…deprive plaintiffs of their substantive right to attorney’s fees merely because the final judgment did not contain the magic words “jurisdiction is reserved.” Defendants cite Oyer v. Boyer, 383 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); McCollum v. McCollum, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), to support their contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees was filed three days afte…
-
Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…nd cost award is not in issue. . A trial court is without 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 rese…
-
Levy v. Levy, 483 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…tters relative to attorneys’ fees and costs and ... to enforce the provision of this Final Judgment and the Agreements which are incorporated herein by reference. In contrast to the case upon which the appellants heavily rely, McCallum v. McCallum, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978),2 this reservation did not relate only to “past attorneys’ fees rather than future attorneys’ fees.” More important, again unlike McCallum in which the trial court “spent” whatever jurisdiction was retained in the final judgment…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Reardon v. Reardon, 355 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)