Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2024

Docket2022-1871

StatusPublished

This text of Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric (Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric) 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

Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA AGRIESTI, Appellant,

v.

VICTORIA AGRIESTI and JAFE CONTRACTING COMPANY d/b/a MODERN ELECTRIC, Appellees.

No. 4D2022-1871

[February 14, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; George Odom, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE19- 014324.

Philip L. Schwartz and Vanessa L. Prieto of Law Offices of Philip L. Schwartz, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Pamela M. Gordon of Law Office of Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee Victoria Agriesti.

GERBER, J.

The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which determined equitable distribution, child support, and alimony. The former husband argues the circuit court erred in three respects, by: (1) making improper and unsupported equitable distribution findings; (2) making erroneous alimony and child support calculations; and (3) finding the former wife was entitled to an attorney’s fees award against the former husband.

On the first two arguments, we affirm without further discussion. On the third argument, we lack jurisdiction because the circuit court had not determined the fees award amount before the former husband filed this appeal. See Perini v. Perini, 322 So. 3d 124, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“The trial court’s order determines entitlement to the attorney’s fees but does not ascertain the amount. An order for attorney’s fees that determines the entitlement but not the amount is unripe for appellate review. Thus, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature.”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA AGRIESTI, Appellant,

v.

VICTORIA AGRIESTI and JAFE CONTRACTING COMPANY d/b/a MODERN ELECTRIC, Appellees.

No. 4D2022-1871

[February 14, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; George Odom, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE19- 014324.

Philip L. Schwartz and Vanessa L. Prieto of Law Offices of Philip L. Schwartz, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Pamela M. Gordon of Law Office of Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee Victoria Agriesti.

GERBER, J.

The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which determined equitable distribution, child support, and alimony. The former husband argues the circuit court erred in three respects, by: (1) making improper and unsupported equitable distribution findings; (2) making erroneous alimony and child support calculations; and (3) finding the former wife was entitled to an attorney’s fees award against the former husband.

On the first two arguments, we affirm without further discussion. On the third argument, we lack jurisdiction because the circuit court had not determined the fees award amount before the former husband filed this appeal. See Perini v. Perini, 322 So. 3d 124, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“The trial court’s order determines entitlement to the attorney’s fees but does not ascertain the amount. An order for attorney’s fees that determines the entitlement but not the amount is unripe for appellate review. Thus, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature.”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joshua Agriesti v. Victoria Agriesti and Jafe Contracting Company d/b/a/Modern Electric, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-agriesti-v-victoria-agriesti-and-jafe-contracting-company-fladistctapp-2024.