Allen v. Allen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. Allen

711 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5535, 1998 WL 250570

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1998

DocketNo. 97-03883

StatusPublished

This text of 711 So. 2d 614 (Allen v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Allen, 711 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5535, 1998 WL 250570 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Valerie Allen (wife) and Richard G. Allen (husband) each challenge the final judgment of dissolution of their marriage. We affirm on all issues except that regarding attorney’s fees.

The trial court determined that the wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, and it reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. Normally, an order establishing entitlement to, but not the amount of, attorney’s fees is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The distinguishing factor in the present case is that the parties stipulated at the beginning of the final hearing that the court would retain jurisdiction for a later hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, no argument was advanced or testimony taken regarding the fee issue at the final hearing. Thus, the husband received an adverse ruling on entitlement without notice that the [615]*615issue was going to be determined. This unilateral decision by the trial court as to entitlement was error in light of the parties’ prior stipulation.

Accordingly, we reverse the determination that the wife was entitled to attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for a full hearing on all aspects of the attorney’s fee issue. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHATLEY, Judge.

Valerie Allen (wife) and Richard G. Allen (husband) each challenge the final judgment of dissolution of their marriage. We affirm on all issues except that regarding attorney’s fees.

The trial court determined that the wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, and it reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. Normally, an order establishing entitlement to, but not the amount of, attorney’s fees is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The distinguishing factor in the present case is that the parties stipulated at the beginning of the final hearing that the court would retain jurisdiction for a later hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, no argument was advanced or testimony taken regarding the fee issue at the final hearing. Thus, the husband received an adverse ruling on entitlement without notice that the [615]*615issue was going to be determined. This unilateral decision by the trial court as to entitlement was error in light of the parties’ prior stipulation.

Accordingly, we reverse the determination that the wife was entitled to attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for a full hearing on all aspects of the attorney’s fee issue. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 614, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5535, 1998 WL 250570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-allen-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack