Church v. Church, s. 75--1514
| Decision Date | 12 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | 75--1701,Nos. 75--1514,s. 75--1514 |
| Citation | 338 So.2d 544 |
| Parties | James W. CHURCH, Appellant, v. Josephine CHURCH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph Teichman, Miami, for appellant.
Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Welcher and Jack E. Thompson, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals petitioner, James Church, appeals those provisions of a final dissolution of marriage judgment awarding various benefits to his former wife, Josephine, and ordering him to send his adult children to college and a subsequent order directing that he pay $3,100 in attorneys' fees.
The marriage between Josephine and James was dissolved, and the judgment recited an agreement between the parties which provided that (1) all assets owned by the parties shall be evenly divided; (2) Josephine retain exclusive use and possession of the marital domicile until such time as their youngest child moves out or vacates the premises; (3) James pay $100 per week alimony; (4) James pay the children's college expenses and continue medical insurance coverage on them. Thereafter, upon Josephine's motion for attorneys' fees, an order was entered directing James to pay $3,100 of the $4,100 awarded to her attorneys. Subsequently, James filed a motion to correct the record and at a hearing the chancellor found that James had never consented to give Josephine exclusive use of the marital residence and ordered that the record be corrected to reflect this fact. These appeals from the final judgment and order on attorneys' fees followed.
We first concerned ourselves with the interlocutory appeal from the order directing that James pay $3,100 of the $4,100 in fees awarded to Josephine's attorneys. We find the order awarding attorneys' fees to be void in that although the chancellor and the parties at this dissolution hearing agreed that attorneys' fees would be allowed at a subsequent date, the final judgment failed to reserve jurisdiction with respect to this matter. Therefore, the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to enter a subsequent order awarding attorneys' fees. See Frumkes v. Frumkes, Fla.App.1976, 328 So.2d 34.
As to the plenary appeal from the final judgment, James first contends that the chancellor erred in awarding Josephine exclusive occupancy and use of the marital residence. We find this point well taken.
All the children born of their marriage have attained the age of majority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Duncan
...all children born of the marriage have attained the age of majority. McDonald v. McDonald. In so holding, we disapprove Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Watson v. Watson, 324 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Ranes v. Ranes; and Saviteer v. An award of exclusive use of proper......
-
Arceneaux v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
...to reserve jurisdiction to enter an attorneys' fees order constituted a bar to a later entry of that order. See e.g., Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). The clearest case along this line is one in which the statute provides that the attorneys fees award is to be included i......
-
Lange v. Lange, 76-2681
...of this state, and therefore is clearly improper. Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The majority has also seen fit to expand the concept of the wife's "need" for alimony far beyond all permissible limits of judicia......
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti
...allows. Appellant argues that a reservation of jurisdiction is invalid unless made in the final judgment itself, citing Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). While those dissolution of marriage cases and others cited by ......