Mezyk v. Mezyk

519 So. 2d 1149, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 485, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 634, 1988 WL 10223
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 16, 1988·No. No. 87-1816·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that a general master erred in refusing to reserve jurisdiction to consider an award of attorney’s fees to an ex-wife who successfully enforced the provisions of a final judgment of dissolution, and that the trial court erred in denying her exceptions to the master’s report on this ground. Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 511 So.2d 977 (Fla.1987); Young v. Young, 507 So.2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So.2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Peacock v. Peacock, 394 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore the matter is returned to the trial court to consider the amount that should be awarded to the appellant as attorney’s fees for successfully enforcing the prior final judgment of dissolution.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

Mezyk v. Mezyk, 519 So. 2d 1149, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 485, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 634, 1988 WL 10223 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

519 So. 2d 1149 (Mezyk v. Mezyk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Broudy v. Broudy
423 So. 2d 504 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Patterson v. Patterson
399 So. 2d 73 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Jaffee v. Jaffee
394 So. 2d 443 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Cheek v. McGowan Elec. Supply Co.
511 So. 2d 977 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Peacock v. Peacock
394 So. 2d 1066 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Young v. Young
507 So. 2d 614 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)