MELISSA ELIZABETH HARRELL HESSERT
v.
GARY BELL HESSERT AND MEGAN WEILAND-PULAYYA

Fla. 6th DCA | 2024-08-16
No. 2024-1246
McCarthy, J., Nardella, J., Mize, J., Brownlee, J.
395 So. 3d 1115 2024 FL 10054 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2024)
Cited by 1 case

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.

Holding

A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court's denial of a motion for contempt and a nonfinal order on temporary relief must be treated as appeals under the proper appellate rules rather than certiorari review.

Headnotes

[1] When a party seeks an improper appellate remedy, the appellate court must treat the filing as if the proper remedy had been sought and proceed under the correct appellate…

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
Key Quotes

“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought.”

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), applied by the court to convert the improper certiorari petition into proper appeals.
Facts & Procedural History

Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging an omnibus order that denied her motion for contempt, denied her…

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.

Topics
Florida Rules Of Appellate Procedure Final Order Non-Final Order Contempt Of Court

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1246 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544-O _____________________________

MELISSA ELIZABETH HARRELL HESSERT, Petitioner, v. GARY BELL HESSERT and MEGAN WEILAND-PULAYYA, Respondents. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Craig A. McCarthy, Judge.

August 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting that this court quash1 an omnibus order entered by the trial court

2

that denied her motion for contempt, denied her motion for emergency pick-up order, and granted in part and denied in part Respondent’s motion for temporary relief. As to the motion for emergency pick-up order, we deny the petition. The other portions of the omnibus order, however, are not appropriate for certiorari review. As to the motion for contempt, which alleged that Respondent was in contempt for violating the requirements of a previously entered final judgment, the order was a final order reviewable under Rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. As to the motion for temporary relief, the order was a nonfinal order which determined the rights of the parties regarding time-sharing under a parenting plan, and was, therefore, appealable as a nonfinal order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This court is not authorized to review the order on the motion for temporary relief through a petition for writ of certiorari because this court’s certiorari review of nonfinal orders is limited to nonfinal orders other than as prescribed by Rule 9.130. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A).

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) states, “If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought.” Therefore, as to the order denying the motion for contempt, we treat the petition as an appeal of the trial court’s order under Rule 9.110. As to the order on

3

the motion for temporary relief, we treat the petition as an appeal of the trial court’s order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. Having done so, we find no error and affirm.

DENIED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

NARDELLA, MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Clermont, pro se.

Michelle Stile, of Stile Law, PLLC, Orlando, for Respondent, Gary Bell Hessert.

No Appearance for Respondent, Megan Weiland-Pulayya.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

Footnotes
1 Petitioner also sought various other forms of relief that this court would not have authority to grant in a certiorari proceeding. See Piquet v. Clareway Props. Ltd., 314 So. 3d 423, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[T]his Court’s authority, on certiorari review, is limited to quashing the lower court’s order.”); ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. of Fla., Inc. v. St. Johns Cnty., 608 So. 2d 59, 64 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 613 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1993) (“A court’s certiorari review power does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to quashing the order reviewed.”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw