JEFFREY CHARLES
v.
SHANNON DENISE WILLIAMS
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.
A party cannot use an appeal of a contempt order as a vehicle to challenge an underlying order that was not timely appealed.
[1] A party cannot circumvent the time limit for appealing an underlying order by appealing a subsequent contempt order based on that underlying order.
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“a contemnor cannot use an order finding him or her in contempt as a back door to challenging the propriety of the unappealed underlying order”
Court's rationale for dismissing the untimely appeal of the paternity judgment
Jeffrey Charles appealed several orders from a family law case, including a Final Judgment of Paternity entered on March 17, 2016. Charles's appeal of…
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 Paternity Judgment 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
JEFFREY CHARLES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-670 LT Case No. 2013-DR-002423 SHANNON DENISE WILLIAMS, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 29, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alice Blackwell, Judge. Jeffrey Charles, Apopka, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.
SASSO, J.
Jeffrey Charles challenges several orders on appeal which we affirm, with the exception of the Final Judgment of Paternity entered on March 17, 2016. Because Charles’s appeal of the paternity judgment is untimely, we dismiss the portions of the appeal relating to that judgment. See Calicchio v.
2 Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (a contemnor cannot use an order finding him or her in contempt as a back door to challenging the propriety of the unappealed underlying order). AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. COHEN and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.