DAVID EAGLE AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
VICKIE EAGLE, 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.
In this child support case, the appellants challenged a trial court order dismissing their complaint without prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that while the trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence of imputed income, the appellants failed to preserve this issue for review by not making a proffer of the evidence.
Although the trial court erred in refusing to hear evidence on imputed income, the error was not reversible because appellants failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not making a proffer of the evidence as required by section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes.
[1] An order dismissing a case or complaint "without prejudice" is sufficiently final to permit an appeal if the case is disposed of by the order and no issues remain for jud…
[2] A trial court's refusal to hear evidence is error, but the error cannot be determined to be reversible without a proffer of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An order dismissing a case or complaint "without prejudice" is sufficiently final to permit an appeal if the case is disposed of by the order and no issues remain for judicial determination.”
Establishes the standard for jurisdiction over appeals from dismissals without prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants David Eagle and the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services filed a complaint for child support under Chapter 409…
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 Child Support Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order dismissing appellants’ complaint under Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, for child support. Because the order appealed from reads in its entirety, “[t]his case is dismissed without prejudice,” the first issue is one we raise, whether we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.
An order dismissing a case or complaint “without prejudice” is sufficiently final to permit an appeal if the case is disposed of by the order and no issues remain for judicial determination. See Carlton v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) [order dismissing complaint for failure to timely obtain service under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j), though “without prejudice,” was final because the dismissal was without prejudice to file a second separate action rather than to file an amended complaint]. The order under review does not indicate on its face whether the dismissal was without prejudice to appellants to pursue their claim for child support in a different case or to file an amended complaint. From the statement of the evidence prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200, however, it appears that the trial court intended for appellants to pursue their child support claim in a subsequent divorce proceeding. We therefore have jurisdiction.
On the merits, appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence that income should be imputed to appellee. We are constrained to affirm, however, because appellants have failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. From the pleadings, financial affidavits, and statement of the evidence, it appears that appellants brought a claim for child support, the amount of which was to be determined by application of the guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, to the earnings of the parties as indicated in the financial affidavits. At the hearing, appellants contended that the trial court should impute income to appellee, because appellee had recently become unemployed. At this point, the trial court stated that it would not impute income to appellee and that appellants should pursue their child support claim in a yet-to-be-filed divorce proceeding. The trial court thereafter entered the order from which the instant appeal is taken.
Essentially, appellants had a right to present evidence that income should be imputed to appellee, but the trial court refused to hear the evidence. Although this was error, we cannot determine whether this error was reversible, because appellants made no proffer of the evidence. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.
BOOTH, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Lawson v. Frank, 197 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…f the order that Mr. Lawson would not be afforded an opportunity to amend his pleading and that the court had rendered a final adjudication on the merits based upon its view of Mr. Lawson’s lack of standing, we have jurisdiction. See Eagle v. Eagle, 632 So. 2d 122, 122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We reverse the circuit court’s order for the reasons explained below. The underlying litigation appears to revolve around Mr, Lawson’s late mother’s house. In his original complaint filed in county court in 2010, Mr. La…
-
Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…nality for the order to be final. This Court has looked to the “statement of the evidence prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200,” to determine that an order was entered without prejudice to file a new action. Eagle v. Eagle, 632 So. 2d 122, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On the other hand, where it remains unclear whether the order is intended to be final or nonfinal, it is proper to dismiss the appeal as premature because the order does not contain sufficient language of finality to consti…
-
Murphy v. Wisu Props., Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…rejudice is not determinative of whether order is final and appealable); Carnival Corp. v. Sargeant, 690 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(“[A] dismissal need not be with prejudice to be a final order for appeal purposes.”); Eagle [*1096] v. Eagle, 632 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(“An order dismissing a ease or complaint ‘without prejudice’ is sufficiently final to permit an appeal if the case is disposed of by the order and no issues remain for judicial determination.”); Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pansy O. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)