Pratt v. Pratt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pratt v. Pratt

207 So. 3d 375, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 19172

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 2016

DocketCase No. 2D16-545

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 3d 375 (Pratt v. Pratt) 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

Pratt v. Pratt, 207 So. 3d 375, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 19172 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Amy Rose Pratt, the former wife, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Blake Edward Pratt, the former husband. We dismiss the portion of the former wife’s appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling on attorneys’ fees. See Card v. Card, 122 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (dismissing the portion of the former wife’s challenge to the final judgment of dissolution that addressed attorneys’ fees because not only was the order ambiguous as to entitlement but it also failed to set an amount of fees thereby rendering that portion of the final judgment nonfinal and nonappealable); Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (dismissing as premature the challenge to the trial court’s ruling on attorneys’ fees where the trial court determined entitlement but reserved on the amount). In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Amy Rose Pratt, the former wife, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Blake Edward Pratt, the former husband. We dismiss the portion of the former wife’s appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling on attorneys’ fees. See Card v. Card, 122 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (dismissing the portion of the former wife’s challenge to the final judgment of dissolution that addressed attorneys’ fees because not only was the order ambiguous as to entitlement but it also failed to set an amount of fees thereby rendering that portion of the final judgment nonfinal and nonappealable); Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (dismissing as premature the challenge to the trial court’s ruling on attorneys’ fees where the trial court determined entitlement but reserved on the amount). In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 3d 375, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 19172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-pratt-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack