Carres v. Margaret Good-Earnest

Full title: LOUIS GEORGE CARRES, Appellant, v. MARGARET GOOD-EARNEST, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Mar 5, 2003

Case No. 4D01-4951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2003)

Opinion

Case No. 4D01-4951.

Opinion filed March 5, 2003.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sandra K. McSorley, Judge; L.T. Case No. C.D. 89-2064 FD.

Louis G. Carres, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Helene Hvizd Morris, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing. In this appeal, former husband challenged, inter alia, that portion of the trial court's order determining former wife's entitlement to attorney's fees. In the initial opinion filed on November 20, 2002, this court dismissed that portion of the appeal and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees since the trial court had not determined the amount. See Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ritchie v. Ritchie, 687 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Former husband filed a motion for rehearing on December 5, 2002, and for the first time, apprised this court that the trial court had issued an order on May 17, 2002, determining the amount of attorney's fees.

Despite former husband's neglect in advising this court of the trial court's order,¹ we find that the judgment did ripen as to the entitlement issue during the course of the appeal; therefore, we have jurisdiction to determine that issue. See Widom v. Widom, 679 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Upon review, the judgment on appeal is affirmed in all respects. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

1 When former wife filed her answer brief on April 8, 2002, she argued that the issue of entitlement was not ripe for review because no order setting amount had been issued. Former husband filed a reply brief on May 3, 2002, but did not even acknowledge the ripeness issue. Following the entry of the trial court's order on May 17, 2002, former husband did not seek to supplement the record on appeal and file a copy of that order with this court. It was only after this court had already filed its initial opinion that former husband, in his December 5, 2002 motion for rehearing, advised this court that the trial court had entered the order setting the amount of fees.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, STEVENSON and KLEIN, JJ., concur.