Barber v. Barber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barber v. Barber

911 So. 2d 245, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15314, 2005 WL 2373429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 2005

DocketNo. 3D03-3119

StatusPublished

This text of 911 So. 2d 245 (Barber v. Barber) 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

Barber v. Barber, 911 So. 2d 245, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15314, 2005 WL 2373429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal before us follows a related appeal between the same parties, Barber v. Barber, 878 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Barber /”). In Barber I, this Court found that the parties’ marital settlement agreement was executed upon the mutual mistake of the parties and as a result, rescinded the agreement. Barber, 878 So.2d at 451. The appeal currently before us arises out of an award of attorney’s fees to the former husband as a result of the trial court’s enforcement of the marital settlement agreement. Because the former husband could not have been the prevailing party in enforcing an agreement which this Court, and the parties, recognized was ambiguous, the attorney’s fees award, which was entered while the Barber I appeal was pending, must be reversed.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal before us follows a related appeal between the same parties, Barber v. Barber, 878 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Barber /”). In Barber I, this Court found that the parties’ marital settlement agreement was executed upon the mutual mistake of the parties and as a result, rescinded the agreement. Barber, 878 So.2d at 451. The appeal currently before us arises out of an award of attorney’s fees to the former husband as a result of the trial court’s enforcement of the marital settlement agreement. Because the former husband could not have been the prevailing party in enforcing an agreement which this Court, and the parties, recognized was ambiguous, the attorney’s fees award, which was entered while the Barber I appeal was pending, must be reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 245, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15314, 2005 WL 2373429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-barber-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack