MITRI FREIHA, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ROULA FREIHA, FORMER WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reserved Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The Court has determined that the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage is not a final order. See Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Fowler v. Fowler, 166 So.3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (dismissing as premature appeal of non-final Partial Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage where judgment reserved jurisdiction to expend additional judicial labor over non-collateral issues of child support and parental responsibility); Starling v. Starling, 146 So.3d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (dismissing as premature appeal from final judgment of dissolution of marriage determined to *1293be a non-final order); Wright v. Wright, 82 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (dismissing as premature appeal from final judgment of dissolution of marriage which retained jurisdiction over integrally related issues). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as premature. The dismissal is without prejudice to file a notice of appeal upon rendition of a final order.
LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.
dissenting.
I would grant appellant’s unopposed motion and extend until September 1, 2015, the time to obtain a final appealable order from the lower tribunal. Though the interests of a minor are involved, one with special needs, it appears the child’s care is addressed in the final judgment and neither party deems time of the essence. Allowing one last opportunity to resolve the distribution of the parties’ remaining personal property (as addressed in paragraph BB of the final judgment) with the newly assigned judge results in no prejudice.
MAKAR, J.,
dissenting.
I would grant appellant’s unopposed motion and extend until September 1, 2015, the time to obtain a final appealable order from the lower tribunal. Though the interests of a minor are involved, one with special needs, it appears the child’s care is addressed in the final judgment and neither party deems time of the essence. Allowing one last opportunity to resolve the distribution of the parties’ remaining personal property (as addressed in paragraph BB of the final judgment) with the newly assigned judge results in no prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutcherson v. Corrine Elizabeth Rognlie, 244 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the Court’s order to show cause, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final order. See Freiha v. Freiha, 169 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Hinckley v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H., 927 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ROWE, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of a…
-
Cisneros v. Guinand (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…ipulated judgment clearly anticipates the expenditure of further judicial labor, rendering it nonfinal. See, e.g., Kirkland v. Kirkland, 153 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Fowler v. Fowler, 166 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Freiha v. Freiha, 169 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). This is evidenced through 6 both a conflict resolution provision, expressly permitting the parties to submit any unresolved time-sharing matters to the court for resolution, and an extraordinarily broad reservation of ju…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Christi Louise O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Fowler v. Fowler, 166 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Wright v. Wright, 82 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Starling v. Starling, 146 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)