Gallow v. Gallow
Opinion
As an outgrowth of domestic litigation the trial court found that the appellant’s counsel had earned $20,155.00 but refused to require the appellee to pay same because of a present inability to do such. There is no question in this appeal as to reasonableness of the fee. We think the trial court erred in either not entering a final judgment for said amount in favor of the appellant,1 and against the appellee, or in retaining jurisdiction to enforce said award against future earnings of the appellee. See Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Ernst, 453 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); House v. House, 399 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Harder v. Harder, 331 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Flipse v. Flipse, 305 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Therefore we return the matter to the trial court for the purpose of making such disposition of the award.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
497 So. 2d 1288 (Gallow v. Gallow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.