JENNIFER ALEC TOLSTON,
v.
ALEX J. TOLSTON,
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.
This case involves an appeal by Jennifer Tolston of eleven post-dissolution orders and petitions for writs related to a contentious divorce proceeding. The appellate court addressed various issues including fees, contempt, property division, and psychological evaluations, ultimately affirming some orders, denying others, and dismissing some as non-appealable.
The appellate court rejected Ms. Tolston's contentions regarding the guardian's fees and her former attorney's charging lien, citing lack of transcripts. The court denied her petition for certiorari challenging the psychological evaluation, also due to the absence of transcripts. Several orders were dismissed as non-appealable.
[1] A guardian ad litem, as an agent of the court, may be paid from a party's distribution from the sale of the marital home.
[2] Appellate review of orders requiring the absence of a transcript is precluded.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“And because there are no transcripts for our review, we also reject her challenge to her former attorney’s charging lien.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for rejecting one of the appellant's challenges due to missing documentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Tolston appealed multiple orders issued after the dissolution of her marriage, including those concerning fees, contempt, the sale of the mar…
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 Guardian Ad Litem Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Jennifer Alec Tolston appeals the following eleven post-dissolution orders:1 (1) order denying Ms. Tolston’s motion for fees and costs; (2) order denying Ms. Tolston’s motion for contempt for failure to pay alimony; (3) order striking Ms. Tolston’s motion to vacate/modify the parties’ marriage settlement agreement; (4) order awarding the guardian ad litem fees and costs; (5) order on the special master’s motion for instruction regarding the sale of the former marital home; (6) order granting Ms. Tolston’s former attorney’s motion to hold proceeds of sale in escrow; (7) order for Ms. Tolston to vacate marital home; (8) amended order directing partial disbursements of the proceeds from the marital home; (9) order granting the special master’s amended motion for fees; (10) order discharging the special master; and (11) order granting Ms. Tolston’s former attorney a charging lien.2 Ms. Tolston further petitions this Court for writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari in which she seeks review of an additional five
orders: three orders denying her motion to disqualify the successor judge; a bar order precluding her from further pro se filings; and an order granting Mr. Tolston’s motion for Ms. Tolston to submit to a psychological evaluation.3 First, we reject Ms. Tolston’s contention that the guardian (“an agent of the court”) could not be paid from Ms. Tolston’s distribution from the sale of the marital home. See Franklin & Criscuolo/Lienor v. Etter, 924 So. 2d 947. 949-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). And because there are no transcripts for our review, we also reject her challenge to her former attorney’s charging lien. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Similarly, we deny her petition for certiorari challenging the psychological evaluation. Without transcripts, we cannot say that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Delgado v. Miller, 264 So. 3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152. We dismiss the appeal of orders (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and (10), which are non-appealable; affirm without further discussion the remaining appealable orders (6) and (9); and deny Ms. Tolston’s two remaining petitions.
Affirmed; petitions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Delgado v. Miller, 290 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)