Romerhaus v. Romerhaus

7 So. 3d 1143, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2176, 2009 WL 633200
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 13, 2009
Docket2D08-1075
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 1143 (Romerhaus v. Romerhaus) 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
Romerhaus v. Romerhaus, 7 So. 3d 1143, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2176, 2009 WL 633200 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Erik B. Romerhaus (the Former Husband) appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Julia Ann Romerhaus (the Former Wife). We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s judgment as it relates to equitable distribution, authority over the children’s welfare, visitation schedules, transportation costs, child care, and matters relating to the foreclosure of marital real estate.

The Former Wife concedes that the trial court erred in including health insurance costs in the Former Husband’s child support calculations and then ordering him to pay one-half of the health insurance premiums as additional child support. This double assessment was error. See § 61.30(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). Thus, on this point, we reverse and remand for correction of the final judgment.

Finally, we dismiss the Former Husband’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that the Former Wife was entitled to attorney’s fees. Because the trial court did not determine the amount of fees, the judgment on this issue is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So.2d 713, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that where trial court decides only entitlement to and not the amount of fees, that portion of the final judgment is nonfi-nal and nonreviewable).

*1144 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.

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

Related

Shadwick v. Shadwick
132 So. 3d 915 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 So. 3d 1143, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2176, 2009 WL 633200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romerhaus-v-romerhaus-fladistctapp-2009.