MAXINE LAMPERT-SACHER, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK SACHER, 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.
In this family law appeal, former wife Maxine Lampert-Sacher sought an emergency stay pending appeal of a supplemental final judgment modifying time-sharing arrangements for the parties' children. The appellate court denied the emergency motion, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion or meet the criteria for a stay.
The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's denial of the stay. The appellant failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of prevailing on appeal, irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, or that a stay would be in the public interest.
[1] An appellate court reviews a lower tribunal's order on a motion for stay under an abuse of discretion standard.
[2] The burden is on the movant to demonstrate an abuse of discretion when seeking a stay pending appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A party seeking to stay the lower tribunal order pending appeal should demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on appeal, irreparable harm to movant if the motion is not granted, or a showing that a stay would be in the public interest.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a stay pending appeal in Florida appellate practice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Sacher filed a second amended supplemental petition for modification seeking a change in time-sharing arrangements. The trial court entered a sup…
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 Motion For Stay Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Maxine Lampert-Saeher has appealed a supplemental final judgment regarding time sharing entered in response to the second amended supplemental petition for modification filed by Mark Sacher, her former husband and appellee. Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal was denied by the trial court. Appellant now files an emergency motion for stay in this court. We treat appellant’s motion as one seeking review of the trial court’s denial of a stay pursuant to rule 9.310(f), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This court applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a lower tribunal’s order on a motion for stay. See Polar Ice Cream & Creamery v. Andrews, 159 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). The burden is on the movant to demonstrate such an abuse of discretion. A party seeking to stay the lower tribunal order pending appeal should demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on appeal, irreparable harm to movant if the motion is not granted, or a showing that a stay would be in the public interest. See White Const. Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 526 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Appellant has failed to meet this standard. In her motion, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding a substantial change in circumstances and in concluding that the children’s best interest would be served by having them primarily reside with appellee. With this argument, appellant appears to have simply adopted a view of the facts different than the facts found by the trial court in its lengthy and detailed order. Despite discounting the evidence favorable to appel-lee, appellant has not shown at this point in the appellate process that any of the material facts found by the trial court are unsupported by the evidence, or that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a stay pending appeal.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order of the trial court denying a stay.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Janice L. Sikes for the Estate of Jimmie Wayne Sikes, 191 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ates Supreme Court. Reynolds then filed an emergency motion for stay in this court, which we treat as seeking review of the trial court’s denial of a stay pursuant to rule 9.310(f), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, See Lampert-Sacher v. Sachet, 120 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). II. Whether an- automatic stay must be entered under the circumstances presented in this case presents a question of law that we review de novo; Section 569.23(3) sets forth the terms by which tobacco settlement signatori…
-
Torres v. Shaw (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…cted Torres’s request to stay the judgment. Torres appealed and filed an emergency motion seeking review of the denial of a stay with this court. We issued an order staying the final judgment and expediting this appeal. See Lampert-Sacher v. Sacher, 120 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (allowing the lower tribunal’s order to be stayed pending appeal when appellant demonstrates “a likelihood of prevailing on appeal, irreparable harm to movant if the motion is not granted, or a showing that a stay would be i…
Authorities Cited
- Lamb v. State, 526 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Polar ICE Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 159 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)