From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosen v. Rosen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 8, 1983
426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

Nos. 82-131, 82-1413 and 82-1444.

January 25, 1983. Rehearing Denied March 8, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, G. Milton Rubin, J.

Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse Ginsberg and Mallory Horton, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.


In case no. 82-131, the husband appeals from a final judgment entered after an earlier one was reversed in part in Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So.2d 1268 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1981). Because the award of $2,000 per month in permanent alimony was fully justified both by the record and our prior opinion, we reject Rosen's contention that it represents an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So.2d at 1272.

The provision of the judgment now under review requiring the payment of a bill of the wife's psychiatrist which was incurred before, but was not allowed in the initial judgment is, however, reversed. It is clear that this award constitutes an unauthorized departure from the limited terms of our mandate, which did not permit the reconsideration of this issue. Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, 83 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1955); Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings Loan Assn., 132 So.2d 341 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 405 (1978).

Case nos. 82-1413 and 82-1444 are appeals by Ms. Rosen from an order in which the trial court, upon its denial of the motion to hold her husband in contempt, and without any request or previous indication of an intention to do so, summarily awarded him attorney's fees for defending the application. As Rosen's counsel candidly and commendably conceded at oral argument, this order was incorrectly entered and is therefore reversed. Bob v. Bob, 312 So.2d 798 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) (attorney's fee not awardable in matrimonial proceeding in absence of proper prayer or other previous notice); see Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 398 So.2d 485, 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (proper motion, notice, and judicial determination of frivolousness necessary for fee award under § 57.105); Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc., 413 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (§ 57.105 fees not awardable against party which has not been successful in entire case).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.


Summaries of

Rosen v. Rosen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 8, 1983
426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Rosen v. Rosen

Case Details

Full title:GENE ROSEN, APPELLANT, v. EILEEN ROSEN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 8, 1983

Citations

426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Rosen v. Rosen

At issue in this proceeding are (1) Ms. Rosen's request for attorney's fees, which the trial court granted,…

Rosen v. Rosen

PER CURIAM. We reverse a judgment that modified a permanent periodic alimony award previously affirmed by…