WILLIAM C. GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
PHOEBE D. GREEN, APPELLEE
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.
In this post-divorce dispute, the trial court retained jurisdiction over property division matters and ordered the father to pay certain costs, guardian fees, and attorney fees related to protecting the family home and the minor children's interests in that property. The father appealed, contending the court lacked jurisdiction and authority to award these fees, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Yes. The trial court properly retained continuing jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the minor children and their right to reside in the residence. The court was authorized to appoint a guardian ad litem and to award the fees in question, as those fees benefited and protected the interests of the minor children. The attorney fees awarded to the mother were warranted because she was justified in requiring the father to comply with the final judgment and in protecting the children's interests from federal tax claims.
[1] A trial court retains continuing jurisdiction over matters pertaining to minor children and their right to reside in a residence awarded to them in a divorce judgment.
[2] A trial court is authorized to appoint a guardian ad litem for minor children in proceedings concerning their residence and property interests.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“he retained a continuing jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the minor children and their right to reside in the residence”
Establishes that the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to oversee ongoing matters related to the children's residence and property interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties divorced in May 1967 with four minor children. The final judgment gave the mother and children the right to reside in the marital home, wh…
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 Guardian Ad Litem Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties are the parents of four minor children and were divorced by a final judgment entered May 31, 1967. In said judgment, the appellee and the four minor children were given the right to reside in what had been the marital home of the parties, title to which was in the name of the appellee, the appellant, and the four mi*493nor children. The appellant was required to maintain the premises, i. e., mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, etc.
On March 20, 1968, the appellee filed a petition seeking to affix responsibility on the appellant in reference to the disposition of the residence, in satisfaction of certain tax claims of the Federal Government against the parties to this appeal and the property. The petition was answered by the appellant, which answer suggested the appointment of a guardian ad litem in the interest of the four minor children,- who owned a four-sixths interest in the residence. This was done and, following subsequent proceedings, the trial court entered various orders fixing liability on the appellant in connection with the disposition of the residence, the interests of the minors, costs, guardian fees, attorneys’ fees, etc. Thereafter, the trial judge fixed the amount of money for which the appellant was responsible and required to pay.1 The appellant has prosecuted this appeal, contending that the court erred in taking jurisdiction of the subject matter and in the authority to award costs to the guardian, attorneys’ fees both to the guardian and to the appellee.
A complete review of the record fails to reveal any error on the part of the trial judge. He specifically granted the appellee and the minor children the right to reside in the residence with the appellant to maintain same and, in the very paragraph in which he gave the appellee and the minor children the right to reside in the premises, he retained a continuing jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the minor children and their right to reside in the residence. He was authorized, as requested by the appellant and the appellee, to appoint a guardian ad litem and he was justified in awarding the fees given because said fees both benefited the minor children of the parties and protected their interests. See: Cone v. Cone, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 907; James v. James, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 534; § 61.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; 17 Fla.Jur., Infants, § 7. The attorney’s fees awarded the appellee were warranted, as she was justified in her action in requiring the appellant to comply with the final judgment relative to a place of abode for her and the minor children, and also in protecting their interests from the action of the Federal Government. Although the appellant was not in actual default under the final judgment, her actions required him to comply with the final judgment and, therefore, she was entitled to her fees. Simpson v. Simpson, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 764; Berger v. Berger, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 279; Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 839; § 61.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Therefore, the action of the trial judge be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Kahn, 600 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…his assertions that he spent the entire 125 hours protecting the child’s interests and that no portion of that time involved efforts to collect a previously awarded fee.2 Compare Saussy v. Saussy, 560 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Green v. Green, 230 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Finally, the trial judge failed to set forth specific findings of fact concerning the requisite factors in determining a fee award as mandated by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified b…
-
Shaw v. Shaw, 314 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…or the expenses upon the marital home, which we have enumerated above, both as an element of child support and also to maintain his own half interest in the property. See, Cooper v. Cooper, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 272; Green v. Green, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 492; Berger v. Berger, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So. 2d 279; Rudolph v. Rudolph, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 397. The husband is a practicing attorney, and his 1973 tax return reflects an adjusted gross income of over $30,500. It is apparent from the final judgm…
-
Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 655 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…3d DCA 1964). Finally, there is no merit to the remaining points on appeal raised by the husband. In particular, the trial court had the inherent authority to appoint and award a reasonable fee to the guardian ad litem in this case. Green v. Green, 230 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (court order requiring husband to pay fees to the court-appointed guardian ad litem for parties’ four minor children in post-judgment divorce proceedings upheld; the trial judge “was authorized ... to appoint a guardian ad litem a…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1953)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 63 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1953)
- Gatto v. Baron Props., Inc., 183 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Coggan v. Coggan, 183 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Berger v. Berger, 182 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- James v. James, 64 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1953)