Gallow v. Gallow

497 So. 2d 1288, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2351, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10564
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 12, 1986·No. No. 86-412·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Gallow v. Gallow, 497 So. 2d 1288, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2351, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

497 So. 2d 1288 (Gallow v. Gallow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Emmel v. Emmel
671 So. 2d 282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Cole v. Cole
648 So. 2d 252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)