PETER A. J. LIGGATT
v.
SUSANNE V. LIGGATT
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 granting one spouse exclusive authority to retain a realtor and enter into a listing agreement, without excluding the other spouse from property possession or rights, is not an immediately appealable non-final order under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130.
[1] An order granting one spouse exclusive authority to enter into a listing agreement for marital property, without determining immediate possession rights or excluding the…
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 intelligenceIn a family law matter, the trial court issued an order granting the wife exclusive authority to retain a realtor and enter into a listing agreement w…
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 Right To Immediate Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-1659 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-DR-001790
PETER A. J. LIGGATT, Appellant,
v.
SUSANNE V. LIGGATT, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Alicia Peyton Robinson, Judge.
September 4, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Peter Liggatt ("Husband") appeals a non-final order which granted to his wife, Susanne Liggatt ("Wife”), “exclusive authority to retain a realtor and enter into a listing agreement without the necessity of any signatures from the Husband." We recognize that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), (iii)a.-c. authorizes non-final appeals of orders that determine “the right to immediate possession of property" and in family law matters that grant “a. the right to immediate monetary relief; b. the rights or obligations of a party regarding child custody or time-sharing parenting plan; or c. that a marital agreement is invalid in its entirety." This order, however, does not make such a determination. Although Wife was given exclusive right to enter into a listing agreement, the order did not give her the right to immediate possession of the property or otherwise exclude Husband from the property, but only from the decision as to who the realtor will be and the execution of the listing agreement. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
NARDELLA, KAMOUTSAS and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Peter A. J. Liggatt, Orlando, pro se.
Edward E. Emrick IV, of Emrick Family Law Firm, Clermont, for Appellee.