RICHARD ALEXANDER CRANE, APPELLANT,
v.
EILEEN CRANE, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1990-03-08
No. 89-1966
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
559 So. 2d 97 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, Judge.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

This is the appeal of an order denying appellee’s motion for entry of an order of contempt for failure of the appellant/husband to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees to the appellee/wife in a custody modification proceeding. The order appealed recites that the husband would be subject to sanctions in the nature of contempt if the attorney’s fees awarded by the court were not paid by a certain date. Because we find the challenged order is a non-final, non-appealable order, the court does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter. See Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799 (Fla.1931). See also Madden v. Madden, 558 P. 2d 669 (Wyo.1977). We decline to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari because we conclude the trial court’s ruling did not depart from essential requirements of law.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Eggleston v. Eggleston, 751 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
    …) because they were “non-final orders entered after final order.” The order in the present case was not entered after a final order, and it is not reviewable under rule 9.130. Goelz v. Goelz, 660 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); and Crane v. Crane, 559 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Appeal dismissed. DELL, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
  • Sell v. Sell, 820 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …l argues in the instant proceédings, and 2) it sets the hearing for sanctions for an unspecified later date and contemplates further action by the trial court. See Stramaglia v. Marubeni Am. Corp., 561 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Crane v. Crane, 559 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see also Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Finally, we conclude that the order is not appropriate for certiorari review because there is an adequate remedy via an appeal after the final order is entered. Se…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw