KAREN ELAINE PULKKINEN N/K/A KAREN ELAINE BRAUTCHECK, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
JYRKI TUONO JUHANI PULKKINEN, FORMER 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.
Appellant sought to appeal orders denying her petition to modify a domesticated Michigan child support order. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appealed orders did not expressly dispose of the petition on the merits or jurisdictional grounds and therefore were not final or appealable non-final orders.
The appealed orders are not final orders because they do not expressly dispose of Appellant's petition to modify either on the merits or on jurisdictional grounds. The orders are also not appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and therefore the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review them at this time.
[1] An order domesticating a foreign decree and an order of protection do not constitute final orders disposing of a petition to modify a child support order.
[2] Orders that do not expressly dispose of a petition on the merits or on jurisdictional grounds are not final orders for purposes of appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appealed orders do not expressly dispose of Appellant's petition to modify, either on the merits or on jurisdictional grounds; thus, the orders are not final orders.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that the orders lack finality because they do not dispose of the petition to modify
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, the former wife, filed a petition to modify a child support order that originated in Michigan. The trial court issued an Order Domesticatin…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition to modify a “domesticated” Michigan child support order. We directed Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it did not appear that either of the appealed orders — the “Order Domesticating Foreign Decrees” or the “Order of Protection”— disposed of the petition.* Appellant responded that this court has appellate jurisdiction to review the orders because they reflect that the trial court “tacitly” accepted Appellee’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Michigan child support order under Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, because Appellee is not a Florida resident. In the alternative, Appellant requested that this court exercise its eei'tiorari jurisdiction to review and quash the appealed orders because otherwise she will be prevented from seeking a modification of the Michigan child suppoi't order.
The appealed orders do not expressly dispose of Appellant’s petition to modify, either on the merits or on jurisdictional grounds; thus, the orders are not final orders. Nor are the orders appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Accordingly, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the orders at this time; and, because the orders do not cause irreparable harm that cannot be remedied upon plenary appeal of the final order on the petition to modify, we decline to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction to review the orders.
In sum, for the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to the right of judicial review of any subsequent final order issued on Appellant’s petition for modification.
DISMISSED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.