Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
In Florida, family law courts must exercise precision and completeness when entering final judgments, especially in matters involving child support and attorney’s fees. Omissions related to stipulated financial obligations or procedural safeguards may warrant reversal on appeal. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how failure to incorporate stipulated arrearages and to reserve jurisdiction over attorney’s fees can result in partial reversal and remand, even when the underlying dissolution of marriage is otherwise affirmed. If you intend to end your marriage, it is important to understand how to protect your rights, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.
Factual Setting and Procedural Background
It is reported that the parties’ marriage dissolved after the defendant discovered that the plaintiff had relocated to her parents’ residence in New Jersey with the parties’ three minor children. The defendant filed a petition for dissolution, while the plaintiff filed a separate petition seeking permanent relocation of the children to New Jersey. These matters were later consolidated and addressed during a single hearing in the trial court.
Allegedly, the trial court granted the dissolution but denied the plaintiff’s relocation request. It is further reported that during the hearing, the parties, through their counsel, entered a stipulation acknowledging the defendant’s arrearage in child support. The amount of this arrearage appeared in one of the defendant’s own prior filings, identified as a Direct Payment Inquiry Letter submitted a month before the hearing. Despite this, the final judgment stated that the defendant was current in his support obligations under a New Jersey order, directly contradicting the earlier stipulation.
It is alleged that shortly after the hearing and before entry of the amended final judgment, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a notice of charging lien. This timely notice was designed to protect the attorney’s right to seek payment of fees from any monetary award. However, the final judgment failed to address this lien or reserve jurisdiction to consider it, instead stating only that the court retained jurisdiction over the parties and the children.
Grounds for Amended Final Judgments in Divorce Actions
On appeal, the court reversed the amended final judgment in part. The court held that the trial court erred in two critical respects: it failed to include the stipulated child support arrearage and failed to reserve jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s attorney’s charging lien.
The court emphasized that stipulations are binding when properly entered into and concern appropriate matters for stipulation. Citing longstanding Florida precedent, the court reiterated that the amount of a support arrearage is one such matter. The failure to include a known, stipulated arrearage in the final judgment warranted correction on remand. The court referred to prior decisions, including Tucker v. Tucker, 966 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), to underscore the enforceability of stipulations concerning arrears.
As to the attorney’s lien, the court held that the plaintiff’s counsel had timely filed a notice of lien before the final judgment, which satisfied Florida’s requirements for asserting a charging lien. Florida law is clear that such liens must be addressed in the underlying action, and that timely filing entitles the attorney to a judicial determination of the lien’s validity and amount. See Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., 517 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Yet the trial court’s general reservation of jurisdiction over “the parties and the minor children” was deemed insufficient to preserve jurisdiction over the lien.
The court explained that for charging liens, courts must clearly retain jurisdiction to consider them. It distinguished the trial court’s vague language from other cases where explicit or sufficiently broad reservations had sufficed. Citing CK Regalia, LLC v. Thornton, 159 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and Gulledge v. Gulledge, 82 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the court concluded that a corrected judgment was required to explicitly reserve jurisdiction over the pending lien.
Consult a Knowledgeable Miami Family Law Attorney
The intricacies of child support enforcement and attorney’s fee claims require precision in both trial court proceedings and final judgments, as even minor procedural oversights can have appellate consequences. At The Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., our experienced Miami family law attorneys provide diligent and strategic representation to ensure that your rights are fully protected at every stage of the case. Call us at 800-596-0579 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.