Johnson v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Johnson

946 So. 2d 1132, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21151, 2006 WL 3715780

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-4170

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 946 So. 2d 1132 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 946 So. 2d 1132, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21151, 2006 WL 3715780 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges several rulings made by the trial court in connection with the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. However, the appellant has not shown any error except insofar as the attorney’s fee award for the appellee encompasses services performed after the dissolution order was filed, to the extent that award exceeds the attorney’s fee limitation in the parties’ nuptial agreement. As indicated in Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972), this limitation does not apply to services performed before the dissolution, but services after dissolution are subject to the agreed limitation. See also Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So.2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 491 So.2d 281 (Fla.1986). This rule is not impacted by more recent decisions such as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154 (Fla.2005).

The appealed orders are reversed to the extent indicated herein. The orders are otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges several rulings made by the trial court in connection with the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. However, the appellant has not shown any error except insofar as the attorney’s fee award for the appellee encompasses services performed after the dissolution order was filed, to the extent that award exceeds the attorney’s fee limitation in the parties’ nuptial agreement. As indicated in Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972), this limitation does not apply to services performed before the dissolution, but services after dissolution are subject to the agreed limitation. See also Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So.2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 491 So.2d 281 (Fla.1986). This rule is not impacted by more recent decisions such as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154 (Fla.2005).

The appealed orders are reversed to the extent indicated herein. The orders are otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 So. 2d 1132, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21151, 2006 WL 3715780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack