AMBER BROWNER, WIFE
v.
TRAVIS BROWNER, HUSBAND
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 dissolving a marriage is nonfinal when the trial court reserves jurisdiction over related claims, regardless of whether some issues have been resolved, and an appeal from such an order is not timely when filed after denial of a motion for rehearing.
[1] When a trial court reserves jurisdiction over related claims in a dissolution of marriage action, the order is nonfinal for purposes of appellate jurisdiction regardless…
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“the reservation of jurisdiction over related claims necessarily renders the order nonfinal.”
Court's rationale for finding the order nonfinal despite resolution of timesharing issues.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2019, from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on January 2, 2019, and an order den…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
April 22, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2019, seeking to appeal a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on January 2, 2019, and an order denying a motion for rehearing on timesharing entered on January 14, 2019. Noting that the order reserved jurisdiction to determine issues of child support and equitable distribution, we ordered Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature.
In response, Appellant states that the trial court did not reserve jurisdiction on the issues of timesharing and parental responsibility, and as to these issues, the order constitutes a final order. We disagree. While the order may have resolved the issues addressed, “the reservation of jurisdiction over related claims
2
necessarily renders the order nonfinal.” Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). And although portions of the order appear to be immediately reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), the appeal is not timely as a nonfinal appeal. Ward v. Bragg, 957 So. 2d 670, 670–71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that rehearing of a nonfinal order is not authorized and does not delay rendition). The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
RAY, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Christi Louise O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Ward v. Bragg, 957 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)