WILLIE WILSON, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MADELINE F. WILSON, FORMER WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of May 31, 2005, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order on appeal is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfinal order. An order dissolving the marriage but reserving jurisdiction over issues such as child support, child custody, alimony and/or property issues, is not final. Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In addition, an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final. See Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Therefore, the order is not rendered final by the happening of an event contemplated by the reservation of jurisdiction. Specifically, the mere expiration of the 60-day retention does not render the order final.
Thus, the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order. For this reason, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
BROWNING, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)…to review these non-final orders by certiorari. The reasoning that retention of jurisdiction for the purpose of modification does not constitute an end to judicial labor is also consistent with other areas of civil law. See, e.g., Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (order dissolving marriage but retaining jurisdiction [*141] over issues such as child support,' child custody, alimony, or property issues is not final); Shaw v. Fla. Steel Corp., 794 So. 2d 708, 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (in…
-
Trisha Guglielmi v. Guglielmi, 324 So. 3d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…, it is temporary and contingent. It contemplates further court involvement if the former wife were to continue her “defiance”; otherwise, the terms of the modification order would expire within three months if she does comply. Cf. Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“[A]n order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final.”); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d…
-
Fischer v. Fischer, 224 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…v. Demont, 24 So. 3d 699, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal where “final” judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction “to consider the division of the parties’ marital personal property,” citing Caufield, 837 So. 2d at 375); Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that “an order which purports. to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final”); Thomas v. Thomas…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Christi Louise O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Alfonson Detroy Ponton and Reginald J. Williams v. Officer B.E. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)