DMITRY PONOMARENKO
v.
FATIMA ESENOVA
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.
The appellate court dismissed part of the former husband's appeal as untimely and affirmed the denial of his petition to modify child support. The court also denied his petition for a writ of prohibition to disqualify the trial judge, finding his arguments legally insufficient.
The appeal from the order denying relief from judgment was dismissed as untimely. The order denying the petition for modification was affirmed because the arguments attacked the original agreement, not the modification. The petition for writ of prohibition was denied.
[1] A notice of appeal filed more than four months after the issuance of an order is untimely and will be dismissed.
[2] A petition for modification of child support will be affirmed if the issues raised in the initial brief attack the original entry of the marital settlement agreement rath…
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“We dismiss the appeal from the order denying relief from judgment, as the notice of appeal was filed over four months after its issuance, thus making it untimely.”
Establishes the reason for dismissing part of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed two orders: one denying his motion for relief from a final judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement, and anot…
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 Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Former husband appeals two orders of the trial court, one which denied his motion for relief from a final judgment of dissolution which incorporated a marital settlement agreement and the other which denied his petition to modify child support. He also filed a petition for writ of prohibition to disqualify the trial judge. We have consolidated that petition with this appeal for disposition.
We dismiss the appeal from the order denying relief from judgment, as the notice of appeal was filed over four months after its issuance, thus making it untimely. We affirm the final order denying the petition for modification, as the issues raised in the initial brief attack the original entry of the marital settlement agreement and not the modification proceedings.
Finally, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition as to the motions to disqualify the trial judge. Not only were they technically insufficient, we deem them legally insufficient as well.
Appellant’s main source of contention with respect to disqualification is the limited amount of time the trial court gave him during the hearing to prepare a written motion of disqualification. He contends that In re Aleman, 995 So. 2d 395, 400 (Fla. 2008), is on point. Aleman, however, involved whether a judge violated the code of judicial conduct by allowing counsel only fifteen or twenty-two minutes to prepare a motion for disqualification in the middle of a first-degree murder trial in which the death penalty was sought. Then the judge threatened the lawyer with contempt. The type of proceeding and its extreme consequence was clearly a substantial factor in finding that the judge violated the code of conduct. Aleman does not stand for a rule of per se reversal any time a judge allows a limited time to prepare a motion for disqualification during trial. In this case, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time for preparing the motion for disqualification.
The other issues noticed in the appeal, but not argued, are deemed waived.
Affirmed as to the final order denying the petition for modification; dismissed as to the order denying relief from judgment; and denied as to the petition for writ of prohibition.
WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.