PAULA D. MOORE, EX-WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
RORY A. MOORE, EX-HUSBAND, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a dissolution of marriage judgment as premature because the trial court failed to establish a time-sharing schedule for one of three minor children, leaving an integrally related issue unresolved.
A judgment dissolving a marriage that reserves jurisdiction over an integrally related issue—here, the time-sharing schedule for one minor child—is not a final appealable order.
[1] A judgment dissolving a marriage that reserves jurisdiction over an integrally related issue concerning minor children, such as a time-sharing schedule, is not a final ap…
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 intelligenceThe trial court dissolved the parties' marriage and established parenting plans for two minor children but directed a reunification parenting plan for…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed this appeal seeking review of a “Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage,” which had been modified by an “Order on Former Wife’s Amended Motion for Rehearing.” The trial court dissolved the parties’ marriage and resolved most of the issues in the case, including establishing a parenting plan for two of the parties’ minor children. As to the third child, however, the order directed a “reunification Parenting Plan that will be based on the report and recommendations of Dr. Stephen Bloomfield.” The order did not determine a time-sharing schedule for the third child and no subsequent order adopting a parenting plan for the third child has been filed in this case.
The issue of time sharing is integrally related to other issues concerning the parties minor children. See Ward v. Bragg, 957 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A judgment that reserves jurisdiction over an integrally related issue is not a final appealable order. See id.; Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); T.H. v. Department of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA *1111999). Similar to the orders on appeal in Ward, Hoffman, and T.H., the instant order is not final because it failed to dispose of an integrally related issue. Therefore, the appeal is premature. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(Z).
The appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a timely notice of appeal upon rendition of a final order.
WEBSTER, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mohamed EL Gohary v. EL Gohary, 76 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…362; Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We conclude that the Final Judgment of Dissolution in this case is not a final order because it fails to dispose of the integrally related issue of visitation. See Moore v. Moore, 50 So. 3d 110, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that a final judgment of dissolution that dissolved the parties’ marriage and resolved most of the issues but reserved jurisdiction to enter a parenting plan for one of three minor children was nonfinal); Ward v. Br…
-
Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 394 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…3d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding a “final judgment of dissolution was a partial final judgment insofar as the marital status of the parties was concerned”). Issues not adjudicated with finality remain nonfinal.4 See, e.g., Moore v. Moore, 50 So. 3d 110, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (dismissing as premature an appeal of a judgment dissolving the marriage and resolving most issues except for the timesharing and parenting plan for a third child; holding the judgment did not constitute a final appealable o…
-
Sbert v. Labrada, 112 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…er related to timesharing of his minor son. As the order expressly contemplates further judicial labor, we dismiss the appeal as premature. This dismissal is without prejudice to appeal this issue upon rendition of a final order. See Moore v. Moore, 50 So. 3d 110, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“A judgment that reserves jurisdiction over an integrally related issue is not a final appealable order.”).…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Ward v. Bragg, 957 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 736 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)