Rosen v. RosenRosen v. Rosen
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
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.