DiBartolomeo v. DiBartolomeo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DiBartolomeo v. DiBartolomeo

732 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6688, 1999 WL 313324

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1811

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 471 (DiBartolomeo v. DiBartolomeo) 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

DiBartolomeo v. DiBartolomeo, 732 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6688, 1999 WL 313324 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellee was entitled to recover from appellant those attorney’s fees incurred on a prior appeal. We reverse that portion of the November 26, 1997 order awarding $14,438 in attorney’s fees and costs, and remand to the trial court for an evidentia-ry hearing on the amount of fees to be awarded. Regarding the two hearings in this case, the parties had stipulated that [472]*472the only evidence to be presented would concern the entitlement to fees. It was the intention of the parties to address the issue of the amount of fees after the trial court had ruled on entitlement. Therefore, no evidence was presented at either hearing as to a reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellee was entitled to recover from appellant those attorney’s fees incurred on a prior appeal. We reverse that portion of the November 26, 1997 order awarding $14,438 in attorney’s fees and costs, and remand to the trial court for an evidentia-ry hearing on the amount of fees to be awarded. Regarding the two hearings in this case, the parties had stipulated that [472]*472the only evidence to be presented would concern the entitlement to fees. It was the intention of the parties to address the issue of the amount of fees after the trial court had ruled on entitlement. Therefore, no evidence was presented at either hearing as to a reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6688, 1999 WL 313324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibartolomeo-v-dibartolomeo-fladistctapp-1999.