REBEKAH DUNAJ
v.
JAMES WORLEY
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.
Rebekah Dunaj appealed orders concerning custody and child support obligations. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings as supported by competent, substantial evidence, and dismissed portions of the appeal relating to orders entered after the notice of appeal was filed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion as its ruling was supported by competent, substantial evidence. To the extent Appellant Dunaj seeks review of an order entered after the appeal was filed, that portion of the appeal must be dismissed because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider matters occurring after the filing of the notice of appeal unless made the subject of a new notice of appeal.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review judicial acts or orders entered by a trial court after the filing of a notice of appeal unless those acts are themselves m…
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion as its ruling was supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
States the standard of review and basis for affirming the trial court's discretionary orders in family law matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Rebekah Dunaj sought review of several orders from the Circuit Court for Monroe County concerning custody and child support obligations. Som…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Rebekah Dunaj appeals several orders concerning custody and child support obligations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion as its ruling was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Richardson v. Richardson, 442 So. 2d 1005, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Therefore, we affirm.
To the extent that Appellant Dunaj seeks review of an order entered after the appeal was filed, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. We do not have jurisdiction to consider matters not properly before this Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h) (“[T]he court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice.”); Santos v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for Holders of the GSAA Home Equity Tr. 2005-07, 258 So. 3d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Pursuant to this rule, Florida appellate courts deny review of judicial acts occurring after the filing of a notice of appeal.”); Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (“This court cannot review judicial acts of a trial court taking place after the filing of a notice of appeal unless those judicial acts are themselves made the subject of a new notice of appeal or other appropriate appellate proceedings.”). Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Alliance Mgmt. Corp. v. Apeiron Miami, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Momcilo Velickovich and Zorica Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 442 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Santos v. HSBC Bank USA, 258 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)