LINDA CAROL KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE ALLAN KLEIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Linda Carol Klein appealed a trial court order dissolving her marriage while reserving jurisdiction on custody, support, alimony, and property division. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order not final and appealable, and declining to treat the appeal as a certiorari petition because Klein waived her objection to bifurcation by failing to object timely.
The order is not a final appealable order because judicial labor in the case has not ended, and it is not an interlocutory order appealable under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a). Klein waived certiorari review of the bifurcation by failing to timely object when she agreed to the continuance conditional on bifurcation and then only objecting ten days later after the first phase of bifurcation was complete.
[1] An order dissolving a marriage but reserving jurisdiction over child custody, child support, alimony, and property division is not a final appealable order.
[2] An order is not a final appealable order when judicial labor in the case has not concluded.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The order appealed from is clearly not a final appealable order because the judicial labor in the case has not come to an end”
Establishes the standard for finality of appellate orders and why this particular order failed to meet that standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted Klein's motion for a continuance on the condition that her husband's motion to bifurcate the marriage dissolution from other i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bifurcation Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife Linda Carol Klein seeks to appeal a trial court order (1) dissolving the marriage between the parties, (2) reserving jurisdiction as to the issues of child custody, child support, alimony, and division of property, and (3) enjoining the parties from disturbing any of their assets. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to entertain it. The order appealed from is clearly not a final appealable order because the judicial labor in the case has not come to an end, see SLT Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974); Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1986); moreover, the subject order is not one of the interlocutory orders appealable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a).
Beyond that, we decline to entertain the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the aforesaid trial court order, as was done in Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Our basis for declining such jurisdiction is that the wife did not properly object below to the trial court’s decision to bifurcate the marriage dissolution issue from the other issues in the case, and, therefore, has waived the point for certiorari review.
The record reflects that the trial court granted the wife’s motion for a continuance below subject to the condition that the husband’s motion for bifurcation be granted; the wife voiced no objection at the time to this condition for her continuance. It was only at a subsequent hearing ten days later that the wife attempted to object to the bifurcation; this objection, however, was quite properly ruled out of order. The wife’s motion for a continuance had already been granted subject to the bifurcation condition, and the trial court had just concluded testimony on whether the marriage should be dissolved. Having already gotten her continuance subject to the bifurcation condition and the first half of the ordered bifurcation having been completed, it was entirely too late in the day to object to this already completed procedure. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977); Volusia County v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Salvador v. Munoz, 193 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Appeal dismissed; certiorari not entertained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Hoffman v. Christi Louise O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…circuit court entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, but retained jurisdiction to determine an equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities. Such an order is not appealable as a final order. See Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). While the order appears final as to the issues addressed, the reservation of jurisdiction over related claims necessarily renders the order nonfinal. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1992). Furthermore, the order need no…
-
Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…e nonfinal order. An order dissolving the marriage but reserving jurisdiction over issues such as child support, child custody, alimony and/or property issues, is not final. Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In addition, an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final. See Ponton v. Gross, 576 S…
-
Arvita M. Bland v. Bland, 971 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…o determine all other issues is a partial final judgment for purposes of Rule 9.110(k). See Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976); Shepardson, 820 So. 2d at 361; Barnett v. Barnett, 743 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); but see Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). However, an order that dissolves a marriage and determines some issues but reserves jurisdiction as to other issues, is not a partial final judgment for the purposes of appeal. See Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197, 1197-98 (F…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- The Cnty. OF Volusia v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Salvador v. Munoz, 193 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)