SHEPARD D. OSHEROW, PETITIONER,
v.
PAMELA WISHOD OSHEROW, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court loses jurisdiction to consider an attorney's fee application if it fails to reserve jurisdiction and the time for amendment has expired.
Petitioner sought to prohibit his former wife's request for attorney's fees in post-dissolution proceedings. The trial court had entered final orders …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Post-Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Shepard D. Osherow seeks to prohibit the trial court from proceeding to consider his former wife’s request for attorney’s fees, filed in connection with post-dissolution proceedings, after the trial court had entered final orders without reserving jurisdiction over the fee request, and the time for moving to amend under Rule 12.530, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (incorporating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530), had expired.
We grant the petition. See Miraglia v. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (granting prohibition relief and noting that “[ujnder these circumstances the cases are clear that the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider an application for an' allowance of attorney’s fees”), and cases cited therein; Frisard v. Frisard, 497 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (reversing order under rule 1.540(a), amending final judgment to add reservation of jurisdiction, because omission was substantive error, not clerical error). We find no authority mandating a contrary result merely because the trial court, at the final hearing, orally found the former wife was entitled to fees.
We express no opinion at this time as to whether the former wife may still obtain an award of fees by means of a motion for relief from judgment for mistake or inadvertence under Rules 12.540 and 1.540(b), see Sottile v. Sottile, 551 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990), or by arguing, in her pending appeal of adverse orders, that the trial court erred in failing to retain jurisdiction over her fee request, see Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Syger v. Syger, 828 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. We grant a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit the trial court from awarding attorney’s fees where the dissolution judgment did not reserve jurisdiction to do so. Osherow v. Osherow, 727 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The order granting rule 1.540 relief to amend the judgment to reserve jurisdiction for attorney’s fees is vacated, solely because it was entered after all proceedings in the trial court were stayed by our order to show cause on…
Authorities Cited
- Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Frisard v. Frisard, 497 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Miraglia v. The Honorable Dwight L. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Sottile v. Sottile, 551 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Seigel v. Seigel, 715 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)