Hare v. Flanagan

663 So. 2d 4, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11591, 1995 WL 642849
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 3, 1995·No. Nos. 94-01671, 94-03628·Published

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellant, Ernest Russell Hare, the husband in this marital dissolution case, challenges both the final judgment of dissolution and a postjudgment order as to an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the appellee, Judith Flanagan, f/k/a Judith Hare, the wife herein. We find merit only in the husband’s contention that the trial court, in its post-judgment order, exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction when it designated the fee award as additional support for the wife. We, therefore, strike from the postjudgment order the provision designating the fee award as support. See Hurley v. Hurley, 644 So.2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Harman v. Harman, 523 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The final judgment of dissolution and the postjudgment order are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part; stricken in part.

THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

Hare v. Flanagan, 663 So. 2d 4, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11591, 1995 WL 642849 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

663 So. 2d 4 (Hare v. Flanagan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harman v. Harman
523 So. 2d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Hurley v. Hurley
644 So. 2d 595 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)