Rosen v. Wilson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosen v. Wilson

922 So. 2d 401, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3290, 2006 WL 544540

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-1217

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 922 So. 2d 401 (Rosen v. Wilson) 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

Rosen v. Wilson, 922 So. 2d 401, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3290, 2006 WL 544540 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

The ex-husband challenges a family law hearing officer’s determination, accepted by the trial court, that he was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for his successful petition for modification of child support. The parties’ divorce settlement agreement contained a provision which required payment of fees by thé unsuccessful party in post-judgment litigation. The hearing officer determined that the ex-wife, who had filed a counterpetition for various relief, was not unsuccessful because during the litigation the ex-husband had complied with the obligations under the settlement agreement, which were the grounds for her counterpetition.

On appeal, the ex-husband argues that he should have been awarded fees on his modification action which was separate from the ex-wife’s counterpetition, citing to Folta v. Bolton, 493 So.2d 440 (Fla.1986). However, he failed to raise this issue at trial. Although the ex-husband objected to the magistrate’s denial of attorney’s fees, in his exceptions to the magistrate’s report he does not make the precise argument that the modification issue was a separate and distinct claim. Therefore, his argument is not preserved for appeal. See Nicholas v. First Interstate Dev. Corp., 315 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

During the course of the proceedings, the trial court awarded the ex-wife temporary attorney’s fees. Part of the ex-husband’s request for fees asked for reimbursement of the temporary fees he paid the ex-wife. Because at the final hearing, the trial court found that neither party was “unsuccessful” within the meaning of the settlement agreement, the ex-wife also was not entitled to attorney’s fees. Therefore, we reverse to the extent that the trial court should have required the ex-wife to reimburse the ex-husband for the award of temporary fees.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

MAY, J., and SWEET, GARY L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

WARNER, J.

The ex-husband challenges a family law hearing officer’s determination, accepted by the trial court, that he was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for his successful petition for modification of child support. The parties’ divorce settlement agreement contained a provision which required payment of fees by thé unsuccessful party in post-judgment litigation. The hearing officer determined that the ex-wife, who had filed a counterpetition for various relief, was not unsuccessful because during the litigation the ex-husband had complied with the obligations under the settlement agreement, which were the grounds for her counterpetition.

On appeal, the ex-husband argues that he should have been awarded fees on his modification action which was separate from the ex-wife’s counterpetition, citing to Folta v. Bolton, 493 So.2d 440 (Fla.1986). However, he failed to raise this issue at trial. Although the ex-husband objected to the magistrate’s denial of attorney’s fees, in his exceptions to the magistrate’s report he does not make the precise argument that the modification issue was a separate and distinct claim. Therefore, his argument is not preserved for appeal. See Nicholas v. First Interstate Dev. Corp., 315 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

During the course of the proceedings, the trial court awarded the ex-wife temporary attorney’s fees. Part of the ex-husband’s request for fees asked for reimbursement of the temporary fees he paid the ex-wife. Because at the final hearing, the trial court found that neither party was “unsuccessful” within the meaning of the settlement agreement, the ex-wife also was not entitled to attorney’s fees. Therefore, we reverse to the extent that the trial court should have required the ex-wife to reimburse the ex-husband for the award of temporary fees.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

MAY, J., and SWEET, GARY L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 So. 2d 401, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3290, 2006 WL 544540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-wilson-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack