SUSAN ELIZABETH EGGLESTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT DANIEL EGGLESTON, 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.
The court held that an order denying a motion to hold a party in contempt for failure to make temporary support payments is not a reviewable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) unless entered after a final judgment.
Appellant sought review of a non-final order denying her motion to hold her husband in contempt for allegedly failing to make temporary support paymen…
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 Jurisdiction On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant is the petitioner in a pending dissolution action and seeks review of a non-final order denying her motion to hold her husband in contempt. We previously denied husband’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that we lack jurisdiction, but now conclude that we should have granted the motion.
The appeal is from an order refusing to hold the husband in contempt for allegedly failing to make temporary support payments. Although there are cases in which appellate courts have reviewed orders denying motions for contempt, it appears in those cases that the orders were entered after final judgment. Hollander v. Vetrick, 675 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Didier v. Didier, 669 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); James v. James, 648 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Jurisdiction to review those orders was authorized by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crane v. Crane, 559 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- James v. James, 648 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Kionka v. State, 660 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Terrie Lee Didier v. Didier, 669 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Hollander v. Vetrick, 675 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)