McIlveen v. McIlveen

644 So. 2d 612, 1994 WL 617119
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1994
Docket93-03736
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 644 So. 2d 612 (McIlveen v. McIlveen) 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
McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 1994 WL 617119 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

644 So.2d 612 (1994)

W. Ronald McILVEEN, Appellant,
v.
Barbara O. McILVEEN, Appellee.

No. 93-03736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 9, 1994.

M. Katherine Ramers, Dunedin, for appellant.

William H. Walker, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

The husband raises three issues in his appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm except in two respects.

We reject the husband's argument that the trial court failed to make sufficient and specific findings of fact to support its determinations as to equitable distribution, alimony, and the obligation of the husband to provide the wife with medical, dental, and ocular insurance, including psychological and psychiatric coverage.

However, we agree with the husband (and the wife concedes) that his insurance obligation should be subject to reasonable limitations as to the maximum cost to the husband. Therefore, we reverse that part of the final judgment regarding the husband's obligation to provide health insurance to the wife with directions that the trial court fix reasonable limitations on the maximum cost to the husband of that requirement.

The husband attacks on several grounds the trial court's determination that the wife is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. We agree with the husband that the trial court should not have determined entitlement to fees in the final judgment when the order on pretrial conference expressly provided that all issues regarding attorney's fees would be determined at a hearing subsequent to the final judgment. However, we lack jurisdiction to review the issue of entitlement and deny review of that issue. We align ourselves with the other district courts of appeal, which have held that an order which only determines the right to attorney's fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order. See Gonzalez Engineering, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., 641 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Trans Atlantic Distributors, L.P. v. Whiland & Co., S.A., 646 So.2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accord Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, 543 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (where the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to make an award of attorney's fees, the issue is premature and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review it).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART WITH DIRECTIONS, AND REVIEW DENIED IN PART.

PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kevin M. Abbey v. Shannon M. Abbey
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
BRIAN GILLER, etc. v. JASON GILLER
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Brunt v. Brunt
272 So. 3d 829 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
SAMUEL BRUNT v. DAWN BRUNT
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Residents for a Better Cmty. & Barbara Hinkson Craig v. Wci Cmtys., Inc.
242 So. 3d 1066 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Lockett v. Lockett
235 So. 3d 1003 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Pulling v. Billmyre Enterprises, Inc.
223 So. 3d 1086 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Collier County v. Phillippi
180 So. 3d 217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Smith v. Smith
169 So. 3d 220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Collier County v. Curry
166 So. 3d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Harris v. Harris
162 So. 3d 1108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Card v. Card
122 So. 3d 436 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Giovanini v. Giovanini
89 So. 3d 280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Morrell v. Morrell
113 So. 3d 857 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Speed v. Ferris
39 So. 3d 349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Zuberer v. Zuberer
28 So. 3d 993 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Ponce v. Ponce
997 So. 2d 1120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil Co., Inc.
990 So. 2d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
DEPT. OF FINANCIAL v. MJ Versaggi Trust
952 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Matlack v. Matlack
893 So. 2d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 So. 2d 612, 1994 WL 617119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcilveen-v-mcilveen-fladistctapp-1994.