MITCH FROWNFELTER
v.
JAMES BRIAN FROWNFELTER
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.
Mitch Frownfelter appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to James Brian Frownfelter, raising six issues regarding homestead transfers, alleged oral gifts, prejudgment interest, vehicle valuation, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on the first five issues and dismissed the sixth issue as unripe for review.
The court affirmed the trial court's determinations on the first five issues without discussion. The court dismissed the sixth issue regarding the amount of attorney's fees as unripe for appellate review because the final judgment determined entitlement to attorney's fees but did not specify the amount.
[1] An order determining a party's entitlement to attorney's fees but failing to specify the amount is unripe for appellate review and any appeal of such an issue is prematur…
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 entitlement to attorney's fees, but not the amount is 'unripe for appellate review'”
Court's citation to Leiper v. Leiper regarding ripeness of attorney's fees claims
The parties were married and entered into a prenuptial agreement. Disputes arose regarding homestead protections, alleged oral agreements concerning s…
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 Prenuptial Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, C.J.
Appellant, Mitch Frownfelter (“Former Wife”), appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to appellee, James Brian Frownfelter (“Former Husband”). Former Wife raises six issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) determining that Former Husband did not improperly transfer homestead protections; (2) rejecting Former Wife’s contention that the parties had an oral agreement regarding Former Husband’s contributions to savings accounts as intended gifts to Former Wife’s children; (3) ordering Former Wife to pay prejudgment interest on certain funds she withheld from Former Husband; (4) determining the value of Former Wife’s vehicle for purposes of equitable distribution; (5) awarding Former Husband attorney’s fees for Former Wife’s failure to comply with a provision of the parties’ prenuptial agreement; and (6) finding Former Husband is entitled to attorney’s fees under the parties’ prenuptial agreement. We affirm, without discussion, the first five issues raised by Former Wife. We dismiss Former Wife’s sixth issue – regarding attorney’s fees – as unripe for appellate review.
The final judgment determined that Former Husband is entitled 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 in part, dismissed in part. DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.