ALEXIS HARRIS
v.
EBONY BOHLER AND MICHAEL BOHLER
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 appeal of a final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking is dismissed as untimely when the notice of appeal is filed more than 30 days after entry of the judgment.
[1] A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and failure to do so creates an irremediable jurisdictional defect that deprives…
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“an irremediable jurisdictional defect”
The court cited Jad v. Abinuman for the proposition that filing a notice of appeal 34 days after entry of a temporary injunction results in an irremediable jurisdictional defect.
Alexis Harris appealed two final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking entered by the trial court, as well as two orders denying 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dissolve Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ALEXIS HARRIS, Appellant,
V.
EBONY BOHLER and MICHAEL BOHLER, Appellees. No. 4D2025-2970 [July 8, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kevin P. Tynan, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 062024DR007089AXDVCE and 062024DR007090AXDVCE.
Alexis Harris, Miami Gardens, pro se.
No appearance for appellees.
SHEPHERD, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court's entry of two final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking, as well as two orders denying her motions to dissolve the injunctions. We affirm the orders denying the motions to dissolve the injunctions, and dismiss the appeal of the final judgments of injunction.
The appeal of the final judgments of injunction is not timely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider that portion of the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) (stating that jurisdiction of the appellate court is invoked “by filing a notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, except as provided in rule 9.140(c)(2)”); Jad v. Abinuman, 427 So. 3d 583, 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026) (dismissing appeal of temporary injunction for protection against stalking because the notice of appeal was filed 34 days after entry of the temporary injunction, resulting in “an irremediable jurisdictional defect”) (citations omitted).
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
KLINGENSMITH and LOTT, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2