JENNIFER ALEC TOLSTON
v.
ALEX TOLSTON
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.
Jennifer Tolston appeals eleven post-dissolution orders in a family law case, including orders concerning fees, contempt, the marital home sale, and attorney liens. She also petitions for writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari regarding additional orders. The appellate court dismisses several non-appealable orders, affirms others, and denies the remaining petitions.
The court affirmed orders granting the attorney's motion to hold sale proceeds in escrow and granting special master fees; dismissed orders that were non-appealable; rejected challenges to the guardian ad litem fees, attorney charging lien, and psychological evaluation order due to lack of transcripts; and denied petitions for writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari.
[1] A guardian ad litem, as an agent of the court, may be compensated from a party's distribution from the sale of marital property.
[2] Appellate review of trial court orders is precluded when the record lacks adequate transcripts necessary to determine whether the court departed from essential requiremen…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Tolston and Alex Tolston were parties to a marital dissolution case in Miami-Dade County. Multiple post-dissolution orders were entered addre…
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 Bar Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 22, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ Nos. 3D20-1598; 3D21-0334; 3D21-0936; 3D21-0570 Lower Tribunal No. 17-3113 ________________
Jennifer Alec Tolston,
Appellant/Petitioner,
vs.
Alex Tolston, Appellee/Respondent.
Appeals from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge. Jennifer Tolston, in proper person. Crabtree & Auslander, and John G. Crabtree, and Charles M. Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for appellee/respondent.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Jennifer Alec Tolston appeals the following eleven post-dissolution orders:1 (1) order denying Ms. Tolston’s motion for fees and costs; (2) order denying Ms. Tolston’s motion for contempt for failure to pay alimony; (3) order striking Ms. Tolston’s motion to vacate/modify the parties’ marriage settlement agreement; (4) order awarding the guardian ad litem fees and costs; (5) order on the special master’s motion for instruction regarding the sale of the former marital home; (6) order granting Ms. Tolston’s former attorney’s motion to hold proceeds of sale in escrow; (7) order for Ms.
Tolston to vacate marital home; (8) amended order directing partial disbursements of the proceeds from the marital home; (9) order granting the special master’s amended motion for fees; (10) order discharging the special master; and (11) order granting Ms. Tolston’s former attorney a charging lien.2 Ms. Tolston further petitions this Court for writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari in which she seeks review of an additional five 1 The court has not yet entered a final order of dissolution. 2 These are consolidated appeals. Orders 1-3 (Case No. 3D20-1598); orders 4-6 (Case No. 3D21-0334); orders 6-12 (Case No. 3D21-936).
orders: three orders denying her motion to disqualify the successor judge; a bar order precluding her from further pro se filings; and an order granting Mr. Tolston’s motion for Ms. Tolston to submit to a psychological evaluation.3 First, we reject Ms. Tolston’s contention that the guardian (“an agent of the court”) could not be paid from Ms. Tolston’s distribution from the sale of the marital home. See Franklin & Criscuolo/Lienor v. Etter, 924 So. 2d
947. 949-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). And because there are no transcripts for
our review, we also reject her challenge to her former attorney’s charging lien. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Similarly, we deny her petition for certiorari challenging the psychological evaluation. Without transcripts, we cannot say that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Delgado v. Miller, 264 So. 3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152.
We dismiss the appeal of orders (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and (10), which are non-appealable; affirm without further discussion the remaining appealable orders (6) and (9); and deny Ms. Tolston’s two remaining petitions.
Affirmed; petitions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Delgado v. Miller, 290 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Franklin & Criscuolo/Lienor v. Etter, 924 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)