KAREN GOSLIN, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
GREGORY JAMES PREISSER, 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.
The court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because an order denying a motion to compel a psychosexual evaluation was neither a final order determining timesharing rights nor subject to certiorari review as a mere discovery denial.
An order denying a motion to compel an independent psychosexual evaluation in a custody dispute is not reviewable by appeal or certiorari because it does not determine timesharing rights and any harm from the discovery denial can be remedied on appeal.
[1] An order denying a motion to compel discovery in a family law proceeding is not reviewable by appeal or certiorari when it does not determine substantive rights and any r…
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 intelligence“Unlike situations where a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial 'cat out of the bag' orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.”
Explaining why orders denying discovery are not reviewable by certiorari because the harm is not irreparable.
The former wife sought to compel the former husband to undergo an independent psychosexual evaluation as part of an ongoing dispute over the timeshari…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the former wife, seeks review of a non-final order denying her motion to compel Appellee, the former husband, to undergo an independent psychosexual evaluation as part of an ongoing dispute over the timesharing schedule for the parties’ three minor children. We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by appeal because the order did not determine the parties’ timesharing rights. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii); Pool v. Bunger, 43 So.3d 837, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by certiorari because the order merely denies a discovery request and any resulting harm can be remedied on appeal. See Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181,182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Unlike situations where a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag1 orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.”); Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[T]his court has adhered to the view that orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CQB v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 177 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…to the view that orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.” Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Goslin v. Preisser, 148 So. 3d 869, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by certiorari because the order merely denies a discovery request and any resulting harm can be remedied on appeal.”). For a denial of discovery to constitute material, irre…
-
Preudhomme v. Garth Bailey, 186 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…1987). The wife ajso seeks certiorari review of the Order upon Former Wife’s Motion to Compel Accurate, Complete. Responses to Her Supple-. [*1084] mental Request to Produce. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. See Goslin v. Preisser, 148 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Romanos v. Caldwell, 980 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur. . Effective January 1, 2015, rule 9.020(i)(3) was amended to provide that "the appeal sh…
-
Aleyssa Marie Arroyo Marrero v. Terence REA (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…ns. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351–52 (Fla. 2012); Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), review denied, 2016 WL 1394470 (Fla. 2016); Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Goslin v. Preisser, 148 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “For a denial of discovery to constitute material, irreparable harm, thus conferring certiorari jurisdiction, the denial must ‘effectively eviscerate [ ] a party’s claim, defense, or counterclaim.’” CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of N.Y…
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
- Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Pool v. Bunger, 43 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)