ARLYNE S. GALLOW, APPELLANT,
v.
GLENN GALLOW, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As an outgrowth of domestic litigation the trial court found that the appellant’s counsel had earned $20,155.00 but refused to require the appellee to pay same because of a present inability to do such. There is no question in this appeal as to reasonableness of the fee. We think the trial court erred in either not entering a final judgment for said amount in favor of the appellant,1 and against the appellee, or in retaining jurisdiction to enforce said award against future earnings of the appellee. See Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Ernst, 453 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); House v. House, 399 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Harder v. Harder, 331 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Flipse v. Flipse, 305 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Therefore we return the matter to the trial court for the purpose of making such disposition of the award.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. This would put the appellant's attorney in the same position as the appellee’s attorney. The record reflects that he has brought an action to reduce his claim for attorney’s fees to judgment and in fact such a judgment has been entered for his fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmel v. Emmel, 671 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…the trial court’s notion that a party should be excused from paying a former spouse’s attorney’s fees when assets are not readily convertible to cash. Such a proposition would undoubtedly lead to abusive pre-litigation strategy. In Gallow v. Gallow, 497 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the trial court refused to require the former husband to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees because of his “present inability to do such.” In reversing the denial of these fees, the appellate court noted the trial court could…
-
Cole v. Leyla Isabel Sicilia Cole, 648 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…the husband had the present ability to pay only $9,000. However, as between the two spouses, the court concluded that the husband was still in the better position to be financially responsible for the wife’s legal fees. Relying on Gallow v. Gallow, 497 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), the court ordered that the law firm of Young, Franklin, Berman & Karpf P.A., was entitled to a money final judgment against the husband for the whole amount owed. We affirm that determination, and note that on remand, as in Gallow…
Authorities Cited
- Donn F. Flipse v. Flipse, 305 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Ernst, 453 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Harder v. Harder, 331 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Smith v. Smith, 399 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- House v. House, 399 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)