ROBERT L. BURNS, JR.
v.
VALORIE M. HOUK
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.
An order finding contempt and awarding attorney's fees without determining the amount is not final and ripe for appellate review.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees in a contempt proceeding is not final and ripe for appellate review when the order does not determine the amount of fees to be awarded.
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“Because the contempt order awards attorney's fees but does not determine the amount of fees, judicial labor has not ended, and the order is not ripe for review.”
Court's explanation for dismissing the contempt portion of the appeal
Robert L. Burns, Jr. appealed an order denying his motion to temporarily suspend a timesharing plan and finding him in contempt of court for violating…
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 Ripeness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ROBERT L. BURNS, JR.,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-548
VALORIE M. HOUK,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 5, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, George Paulk, Judge.
James D. Tittle, of Tittle, Kairalla, & Logan, P.L., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
Mark S. Peters, of Eisenmenger, Blaue & Peters, P.A., Viera, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., appeals the order denying his motion to temporarily suspend a timesharing plan and finding him in contempt of court for violating the plan. We affirm in all respects, with one exception. Because the contempt order awards attorney’s fees but does not determine the amount of fees, judicial labor has not ended, and the order is not ripe for review. Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the order on
2 contempt, and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to this issue. See Nathanson v. Rishyko, 140 So. 3d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Rushing v. Rushing, 132 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., and TAKAC, M., Associate Judge, concur.