Court Opinion

ID: 9513398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:35:17.342367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:51.078482
License: Public Domain

*131GLASER, Surrogate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 20] I have a problem with the majority opinion because the trial court apparently said one thing but, legally speaking, did another. I refer to the fact that the trial court declined to rule on a request for attorney’s fees because it considered it not “properly before me at this time.” She went on to suggest that the defendant “could make a separate motion with regard to that issue if you want....” That is far from concluding, as does the majority, that the trial court “expressly reserved the attorney fee issue for later resolution.” On the contrary, the trial court ordered the entry of the third amended judgment which required the parties to pay their own attorney’s fees and costs. That judgment was not appealed and became final before the question of attorney’s fees was raised in the fourth proceeding. When a judgment becomes final it is not subject to retroactive revision except in limited circumstances not present here.
[¶ 21] Accordingly, I would limit consideration of the attorney fee question to activity that took place after the third amended judgment was entered on remand from the first appeal in this case.
[¶ 22] MAURICE R. HUNKE, District Judge, concurs.