ARLENE PREUDHOMME, APPELLANT,
v.
GARTH BAILEY, 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, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order clarifying and enforcing a parenting plan, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also dismissed portions of the wife's appeal as to other orders that were not final or appealable.
The court affirmed the trial court's clarification of the parenting plan as a non-abusive exercise of discretion. The court also held that orders denying motions without prejudice are not final or appealable orders, and that certiorari review was not appropriate for the orders the wife sought to challenge.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in clarifying a parenting plan.
[2] A motion for reconsideration or rehearing is deemed abandoned if a notice of appeal is filed before a written order is rendered on the motion.
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in clarifying the parenting plan”
Establishes the standard and holding that the trial court's clarification of the parenting plan was proper and not subject to reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute between former spouses regarding clarification and enforcement of a parenting plan. The former husband filed a motion 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 Motion To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the Order, upon Petitioner/Former Husband’s Motion for Clarification and Enforcement of Parenting Plan, finding that the trial court .did not abuse its discretion in clarifying the parenting plan. See Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 961 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The wife’s Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing of Order, on Former Husband’s Motion for Clarification and Enforcement is deemed abandoned because she filed her notice of appeal before rendition of a written order on her motion. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i)(3) (2014 ed.) 1 ; GEICO Gen. Ins, Co. v. Williams, 111 So.3d 240, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
We dismiss the wife’s appeal as to the other orders. The order denying the Former Wife’s Motion to Amend, Clarify, and/or Enforce Parenting Plan was without prejudice to her filing “separate, legally sufficient motions and/or petitions” and therefore was not a final order nor an appealable non-final order. See Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). For this same reason, we dismiss the wife’s appeal of the order denying without prejudice the Former Wife’s Amended Motion .for Attorneys Fees and Costs. See Scott ex rel. Scott v. Women’s Med. Grp., P.A., 837 So.2d 577, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating that an order denying a motion for' attorney’s fees without prejudice is neither a final order nor an appealable non-final-order).
The. wife attempts to circumvent this rule by seeking certiorari, review of the order denying her motion for fees; however, certiorari review is not appropriate. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097,1098 (Fla.1987). The wife ajso seeks certiorari review of the Order upon Former Wife’s Motion to Compel Accurate, Complete. Responses to Her Supple-. *1084mental 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Scott v. Women's Med. Grp., P.A., 837 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 111 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Pomeranz v. Ina T. Pomeranz, 961 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Goslin v. Preisser, 148 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Watts v. Acad. FOR Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., 980 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Romanos v. Caldwell, 980 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)