TONI L. SEXTON, APPELLANT,
v.
OSCAR DENNIS HERNANDEZ, JR., 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 appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
The trial court clarified a parenting plan regarding spring break timesharing. The appellant filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied, and then …
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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Toni Sexton’s appeal from the order granting Oscar Hernandez, Jr.’s expedited motion requesting equal timesharing of the parties’ children during their 2016 spring break is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Hernandez’s motion required the trial court to interpret the 2013 Final Parenting Plan as the result of a change in the children’s School and school calendar. On February 11, 2016, following a hearing, the court entered an order clarifying the Parenting Plan with respect to the parties’ timesharing arrangement for spring break 2016. The court’s ruling was limited to the period of March 11 through March 18, 2016, and the court ordered jhe parties to mediate the terms of the Parenting Plan to eliminate future issues.
Ms. Sexton filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied, and she ultimately filed her notice of appeal on March 22, 2016.
The court’s February 11, 2016, order is an appealable nonfinal order determining the rights of a party regarding timeshar-ing under a parenting plan. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b). However, we lack jurisdiction to review the order because Ms. Sexton’s motion for rehearing did not toll rendition of the order and her notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i); 9.130(b); Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So.2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.