DONALD O. MANUCY, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY YURGALEWICZ, WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance, which the Court treats as a response to its show cause order of June 7, 2000, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order on appeal is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfi-nal 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). Thus, the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine personal property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order. For this reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The ap pellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance is denied.
DISMISSED.
KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…cases are more like our decision in Manucy v. Yur-galewicz, where we held that “the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine personal property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order.” See 906 So. 2d 1227, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In Manu-cy, despite the presentation of evidence making the matter ripe for determination, the parties requested the trial court allow them to make a distribution of the marital assets without judicial assistance, thus for…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Christi Louise O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)