VESTUS ELBERT PRUITT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
AUGUST OWENS PRUITT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees In Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, movant below, brings this appeal from an order entered by the trial court, incorporating a report of the general master, denying jurisdiction to determine certain property rights after a divorce decree between the parties had been entered. The general master found that the property rights of the parties were determined as of the date of the final decree and that no post-decree order may now be entered affecting or determining the property rights of the parties. Under the facts of this cause as reflected by the record, we agree with this proposition, particularly as it relates to the parties’ Texas property. See, e. g., Finston v. Finston, 37 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1948); Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
However, we believe that the trial court erred when it awarded attorney’s fees to appellee in regard to appellant’s motion. See, e. g., Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Schwebkne v. Schwebkne, 347 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed, except, to the extent that it awarded attorney’s fees to appellee, it is reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Generally, a court has no jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in the judgment of dissolution. Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Pruitt [*1019] v. Pruitt, 370 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined at a later time if jurisdiction to do so has been specifically retained, Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976). The court also retains jurisdiction to enfo…
-
Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…as not a true “property settlement agreement," and its alimony provisions therefore remain legally subject to modification. Brisco v. Brisco, 355 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); compare Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 370 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . No testimony was taken, and the petition was dismissed rather than denied. . Because of this determination we do not resolve the conflict as to the meaning of the clause in the agreement and judgment that [i]n the event of c…
-
Covin v. Covin, 403 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Generally, a court has no jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in the judgment of dissolution. Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 370 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined at a later time if jurisdiction to do so has been specifically retained, Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976). The court also retains jurisdiction to enfo…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roslyn S. Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935 (Fla. 1948)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Schwebke v. Aveline C. Schwebke, 347 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)