Drago v. Drago, 895 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Drago v. Drago, 895 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Krystle Oddo Vs Christopher Oddo, 340 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 529 Redesignating petition for writ of certiorari appeal3 citing casesre-designating a petition for writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights and awarding attorney’s fees as a non-final appeal under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)3 citing courts put it this way
  • Krystle Oddo Vs Christopher Oddo, 340 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).published
    (redesignating a petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal from a nonfinal order modifying visitation rights under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii))
  • Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).published
    (re-designating a petition for writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights and awarding attorney’s fees as a non-final appeal under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii))
  • Jade Winds Ass'n v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).published
    (re-designating a petition for writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights as reviewable as a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii))
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James DRAGO, Appellant,
v.
Elizabeth DRAGO, Appellee.
4D04-988.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 9, 2005.
Published opinion
895 So. 2d 529
2005 WL 545213
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

James P. Drago, Boca Raton, pro se.

Elizabeth Drago, Coral Springs, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The former husband petitioned for a writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights and awarding attorney's fees. We previously redesignated this petition as an appeal from a non-final order under Fla. R.App. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii). We affirm the order in all respects, except the award of attorney's fees.

In its order, the trial court held the former husband "responsible in the entirety with respect to all legal fees incurred" by the former wife. The court further ordered the former husband to contact the former wife's counsel within seven days regarding payment. The order does not, however, determine the amount of fees, and further fails to contain the requisite findings concerning the parties' needs and ability to pay. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla.1997). We therefore affirm the order regarding visitation rights, but dismiss that part of the appeal relating to attorney's fees as premature.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.