Edge v. Edge

• Decision Date: 07 September 2011
• Docket Number: 3D10–3348.,Nos. 3D09–865,s. 3D09–865
• Parties: Zackary EDGE, Appellant,v.Geraldine EDGE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

69 So.3d 348

Zackary EDGE, Appellant,

v.Geraldine EDGE, Appellee.

Nos. 3D09–865

3D10–3348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 7, 2011.

Robert A. Ader and Elizabeth B. Hitt, for appellant.Orshan & Fajardo and Eliot R. Weitzman; Elser & Foster–Morales and Marsha B. Elser, Miami; Myron M. Gold; Greene Smith and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellee.Before SHEPHERD, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.SHEPHERD, J.

This is an appeal from a post-decretal final money judgment, awarding the former wife reimbursement for federal income taxes paid by her on seven years of post-dissolution alimony payments, and a separate order granting Roberta Fox's (one of former wife's counsels) objection to the referral to a magistrate of the former husband's request for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes (2006), against both her and her client for the filing and prosecution of the petition, which has brought us here.

Although we recognize the trial court granted the former wife's counsel's objection to the referral of the former husband's request for section 57.105 sanctions nearly two years after a predecessor judge referred the request to the general magistrate, with the consent of all parties, including the former wife's then counsel of record, Roberta Fox, we, nevertheless, are compelled to dismiss the appeal sought to be taken from this order for lack of jurisdiction. See Grafman v. Grafman, 488 So.2d 115, 118 (Fla.1986); Peebles v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., 817 So.2d 1002, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Little Arch Creek Props., Inc. v. Med. Facilities, 698 So.2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Neither the possibility (or even likelihood) that a party will incur additional attorney fees and costs as a consequence of an erroneous non-final order, nor that the court will waste limited resources by proceeding, is a sufficient ground to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court to review an otherwise non-appealable, non-final order.

At the same time, we reverse the final judgment awarding the former wife reimbursement for federal income taxes paid by her on seven years of post-dissolution alimony payments. The final judgment followed an order in which the trial court granted the former wife's exceptions to the report and recommendation of a general magistrate, which recommended denial of reimbursement based on the doctrine of laches and the doctrine of unclean hands. As the former husband expressly made clear both in the response filed to the former wife's exceptions and at the hearing on the exceptions, the former wife, in either instance, did not except to the magistrate's recommended denial on the basis of the doctrine of unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands is a separate and distinct ground for denying relief from the doctrine of laches. Compare Epstein v. Epstein, 915 So.2d 1272, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“He who has acted in bad faith, resorted to trickery and deception, or been guilty of fraud, injustice, or unfairness will...