Winner v. Winner, 79-346
| Decision Date | 13 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-346,79-346 |
| Citation | 376 So.2d 924 |
| Parties | Marion L. WINNER, Appellant, v. Linda G. WINNER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steinberg & Sorota and Samuel S. Sorota, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Koeppel, Stark & Newmark and Robert L. Koeppel, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
During the pendency of a prior appeal between these parties (see: Winner v. Winner, 370 So.2d 845 (Fla.3d DCA 1979)), the trial court entered three orders which are the subject matter of this appeal. One required the appellant to pay $1,731.00 as costs expended by the appellee in the defense of the original final judgment in proceedings in a foreign state. It also required the appellant to pay $3,400.00 as reasonable attorney's fees for appellate work in the prior appeal. The second order found the appellant in contempt for failure to pay the $1,731.00, and the third order was, in fact, a final judgment awarding to the wife $3,400.00 in attorney's fees, $16,000.00 due the wife in lieu of the diamonds referred to in the earlier opinion, costs, and additional attorney's fees. We reverse all three orders.
As to the first order, we reverse so much of same which awarded costs of $1,731.00 because no prior notice of the hearing or pleading claiming such was served on the appellant. We reverse that portion of the order awarding $3,400.00 as appellate attorney's fees because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award a fee for services rendered in this court. The proper method to secure such fees is pursuant to Rule 9.400(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellee contends that these fees were justified because this is a domestic relations matter and they are provided for in Rule 9.600(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We disagree. The attorney's fees and suit money provided for in this latter rule are those that might be incurred in a trial court in enforcing the provisions of a final judgment, contrasted to services rendered in representing a party in an appellate process.
As to the order holding the appellant in contempt for failing to pay the $1,731.00 in costs, because of what is said above this order is obviously erroneous and will be reversed.
The last order, the final judgment for the amounts found to be due the appellee, is reversed because the appellee lost the $16,000.00 in lieu of the diamonds pursuant to the prior opinion in this cause (see: Winner v. Winner, supra),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blum v. Blum, s. 79-507
...judgment. These orders are reversed (a) because of our reversal, supra, of those provisions of the judgment itself, see Winner v. Winner, 376 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and (b) because neither order contains, and the record of course does not justify, the determination required by Faircl......
-
Erskine v. Erskine
... ... jurisdiction to award a fee for services rendered in this ... court." Winner v. Winner , 376 So.2d 924, 924 ... (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Without any consideration or treatment ... ...
-
Travelers Indem. Co. of America v. Morris
...9.400(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for services related 2 to the earlier appeal. 3 See, Winner v. Winner, 376 So.2d 924 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The order below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to deny the appellee's motion for additional Rever......
-
Erskine v. Erskine
...in a domestic relations case "because [it] lacked jurisdiction to award a fee for services rendered in this court." Winner v. Winner , 376 So. 2d 924, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Without any consideration or treatment of the text in section 61.16, the Fifth District Court of Appeal adopted in t......