In this dissolution action, the former wife appeals from the circuit courts final order granting the former husbands motion to dismiss the former wifes post-final judgment motion requesting the circuit court to determine and award the amount of the former wifes attorneys fees and costs in the entire action. The circuit court reasoned it lacked jurisdiction to determine and award the amount because the circuit courts final judgment “lacked the requisite language needed to reserve jurisdiction.”
We disagree with the circuit court and reverse the order on appeal. Although the final judgment did not specify the circuit court had “reserved jurisdiction” to determine and award the amount of the former wifes attorneys fees and costs, the circuit court, in a pre-judgment order on the former wifes request for temporary attorneys fees and costs, and in the final judgment itself, already had determined the former wife was entitled to an award of her reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the entire action. Thus, the circuit court necessarily retained post-judgment jurisdiction to determine and award the amount of the former wifes reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
Our conclusion is consistent with a number of our cases where we have reversed the denial of the moving partys request for attorneys fees and costs, where the moving party had requested attorneys fees and costs, but the circuit court failed to address the request before entering final judgment. See, e.g., Flores v. Flores, 82 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Where the trial court fails to address a request for attorneys fees and costs or to reserve jurisdiction to consider the issue, the final judgment should be reversed and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment reserving jurisdiction to address the request for attorneys fees and costs.”) (citing, inter alia, Singer v. Singer, 38 So. 3d 889, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and Perez v. Perez, 846 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).
The instant facts present an even more compelling case for reversal. Here, the circuit court twice addressed the former wifes request for attorneys fees and costs, in both the circuit courts pre-judgment order on the former wifes request for temporary attorneys fees and costs, and in the final judgment itself, by finding the former wife was entitled to an award of her reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The circuit courts only post-judgment task was to determine and award the amount of the former wifes reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the entire action. Thus, we must reverse and remand for entry of a corrected final judgment reserving jurisdiction to determine and award the amount of the former wifes reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the entire action. Flores, 82 So. 3d at 839.
The cases upon which the former husband relied in the circuit court and in his answer brief pre-date our more recent cases above, and are otherwise distinguishable in certain respects. See, e.g., McCallum v. McCallum, 364 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (where the former wife filed a modification petition but did not include a request for attorneys fees, and did not file a motion to tax attorneys fees until after the rehearing and appeal time had run on the order granting her petition, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the former wifes request for attorneys fees).
On all other arguments which the former husband has raised seeking to affirm the order on appeal, we find those arguments lack merit without further discussion.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order on appeal, and remand for the circuit court to: (1) enter a corrected final judgment reserving jurisdiction to determine and award the amount of the former wifes reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the entire action; and (2) conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine and award by final order the amount of the former wifes reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the entire action.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Damoorgian and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
Gerber, J.