NANCY M. KEMMET, APPELLANT,
v.
ALVIN RAY KEMMET, JR., 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 dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order made findings of fact but failed to enter a final judgment on those findings, rendering it neither final nor appealable.
An order that makes findings of fact but fails to enter judgment on those findings is not a final or appealable order and does not conclude judicial labor.
[1] An order that makes findings of fact but fails to enter judgment on those findings is not a final or appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court issued an order making findings regarding spousal support but did not enter a final judgment on tho…
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 Judicial Labor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated May 9, 2005, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal is neither a final order nor a nonfinal order appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Savery v. Savery, 870 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Veiner v. Veiner, 459 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Specifically, the order on appeal made findings of fact as required by this Court’s opinion in Kemmet v. Kemmet, 885 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), but failed to enter judgment on those findings. Where a portion of a dissolution of marriage judgment has been reversed, it is as if that part of the order had never been entered. Savery, 870 So. 2d at 921. Therefore, the finding in the instant order that there is no “demonstrated need of the Wife for additional spousal support over and above that awarded in the Final Judgment” is insufficient to conclude the judicial labor in this ease.
The appellant’s motion for an extension of time to conduct a hearing and obtain a final appealable order, filed with her response on May 13, 2005 is denied. Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
DISMISSED.
BROWNING, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Kemmet v. Kemmet, 885 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Veiner v. Veiner, 459 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Oliver v. State, 870 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)