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 appellant challenging multiple post-dissolution orders and seeking extraordinary writs. The appellate court dismissed some appeals as non-appealable, affirmed others, and denied the petitions, finding insufficient grounds or lack of transcripts to review the challenges.
The appellate court rejected the appellant's contentions regarding the guardian's fees and her former attorney's charging lien due to the lack of transcripts. The court dismissed appeals of non-appealable orders and denied petitions for writs where the appellant failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[1] A guardian ad litem, as an agent of the court, may be paid from a party's distribution from the sale of marital property.
[2] Appellate review of orders concerning the sale of marital property or the imposition of a charging lien is precluded without a transcript of the proceedings.
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“And because there are no transcripts for our review, we also reject her challenge to her former attorney’s charging lien.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for rejecting a specific appeal due to lack of a transcript.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Alec Tolston appealed eleven post-dissolution orders and petitioned for writs concerning five additional orders. The orders involved motions …
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)