Feltman v. Feltman

721 So. 2d 424, 1998 WL 842697
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 2, 1998
Docket97-0045, 97-2116
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 721 So. 2d 424 (Feltman v. Feltman) 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
Feltman v. Feltman, 721 So. 2d 424, 1998 WL 842697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

721 So.2d 424 (1998)

Ralph Lee FELTMAN, Appellant,
v.
Charlotte Harvey FELTMAN, Appellee.

No. 97-0045, 97-2116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 2, 1998.

*425 Paula Revene of Law Office of Paula Revene, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Martin L. Haines, III, Chartered, Lake Park and H.T. Maloney of Law Office of Patterson, Maloney & Maisel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, an order liquidating and enforcing a charging lien and a judgment awarding attorney's fees to his former wife. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in all respects, except the designation of the 9th Street warehouse property as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. There was insufficient competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the 9th Street warehouse property, which was inherited by the husband and his sister upon the death of their mother, constituted marital property.

We also find error in entry of the post-judgment order enforcing and liquidating a charging lien in favor of the husband's former trial counsel. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order imposing a charging lien after rendition of the final judgment, which did not reserve jurisdiction for that purpose. We, therefore, reverse the order, See Keister v. Polen, 471 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Patin v. Popino, 459 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Vazquez v. Vazquez, 512 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

With respect to the husband's claim that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the wife, we find no error and affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

POLEN, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen
998 So. 2d 1158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Weiland v. Weiland
814 So. 2d 1252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Sizemore v. Sizemore
767 So. 2d 545 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
721 So. 2d 424, 1998 WL 842697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feltman-v-feltman-fladistctapp-1998.