SUZANNA LEIPER
v.
EDWARD LEIPER
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.
An order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount is unripe for appellate review and must be dismissed as premature.
[1] A trial court's determination of entitlement to attorney's fees is not ripe for appellate review when the court fails to specify the amount of the award.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An order that determines the entitlement but not the amount of attorney's fees is unripe for appellate review.”
Court's statement of law regarding when attorney's fee determinations may be appealed
The former wife appealed the trial court's amended supplemental final judgment in modification and enforcement proceedings. The trial court determined…
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 Ripeness For Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. The former wife appeals the trial court’s amended supplemental final judgment which disposed of the modification and enforcement proceedings between the parties. We affirm, without opinion, all issues raised in the former wife’s appeal except the determination of entitlement to attorney’s fees. The trial court determined entitlement to attorney’s fees but did not ascertain the amount. An order that determines the entitlement but not the amount of attorney’s fees is unripe for appellate review. E.g., Fredrickson v. Fredrickson, 47 So. 3d 975, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Thus, while we affirm all other issues raised in this appeal, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of the trial court’s determination of entitlement to attorney’s fees as premature.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitch Frownfelter v. Frownfelter (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…attorney’s fees but did not determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Because the judgment did not determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, Former Wife’s argument is unripe for appellate review. See Leiper v. Leiper, 331 So. 3d 233, 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding that an order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees, but not the amount is “unripe for appellate review”). Therefore, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature. See id. Aff…
-
Mitch Frownfelter v. Frownfelter (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…to attorney’s fees but did not determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Because the judgment did not determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, Former Wife’s argument is unripe for appellate review. See Leiper v. Leiper, 331 So. 3d 233, 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding that an order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees, but not the amount is “unripe for appellate review”). Therefore, we dismiss without prejudice the appeal of this issue as premature. See id. Affirmed…
Authorities Cited
- Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Fredrickson v. Fredrickson, 47 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)