Morse v. Morse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morse v. Morse

709 So. 2d 644, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4603, 1998 WL 204721

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketNo. 97-02013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 709 So. 2d 644 (Morse v. Morse) 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

Morse v. Morse, 709 So. 2d 644, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4603, 1998 WL 204721 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

Lawrence L. Morse, the husband in this marital dissolution case, challenges a final order, which he contends erroneously denies his motion to set aside a mediated settlement agreement and improperly awards the wife, Mary L. Morse, attorney’s fees relative to his motion. We affirm the denial of the motion without discussion. We decline to review the trial court’s determination on the issue of attorney’s fees, however, as the order merely establishes the wife’s entitlement thereto and does not otherwise set the amount of the fees. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The husband’s challenge to fees is therefore dismissed, because that portion of the order which addresses fees is nonfinal and nonappealable. See id.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

ALTENBERND, J., concurs. FULMER, J., concurs specially with an opinion in which ALTENBERND, J., concurs.

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

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

Lawrence L. Morse, the husband in this marital dissolution case, challenges a final order, which he contends erroneously denies his motion to set aside a mediated settlement agreement and improperly awards the wife, Mary L. Morse, attorney’s fees relative to his motion. We affirm the denial of the motion without discussion. We decline to review the trial court’s determination on the issue of attorney’s fees, however, as the order merely establishes the wife’s entitlement thereto and does not otherwise set the amount of the fees. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The husband’s challenge to fees is therefore dismissed, because that portion of the order which addresses fees is nonfinal and nonappealable. See id.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

ALTENBERND, J., concurs. FULMER, J., concurs specially with an opinion in which ALTENBERND, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 So. 2d 644, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4603, 1998 WL 204721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-morse-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack