Court Opinion

ID: 9902659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:21:22.635783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.788114
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-2479
                   LT Case No. 2013-DR-2368
                 _____________________________

JONATHON OBERMARK,

    Appellant,

    v.

CHRISTINE OBERMARK,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.
Michael G. Takac, Judge.

Jean M. Henne, of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for
Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

                      September 22, 2023

PER CURIAM.

    Jonathon Obermark (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial
court’s Final Order dismissing his supplemental petition for
modification of child support without holding an evidentiary
hearing, depriving him of due process. We dismiss the appeal.

    The appealed order dismissed Former Husband’s petition
“without prejudice.” Generally, when an order dismisses a
complaint or pleading without prejudice, the order is not a final,
appealable order. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Rodriguez, 206 So.
3d 734, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). However, if it is clear from the
context of the record that the plaintiff’s right to pursue the case
requires the filing of a new case, the order is final. See id. In this
case, although the title of the appealed order contains the terms
“Final Order,” there is nothing on the face of the order that
prohibited Former Husband from filing an amended supplemental
petition. See Delgado v. Morejon, 295 So. 3d 1214, 1217 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2020) (dismissing appeal of trial court’s order dismissing
former husband’s petition where order did not indicate it was with
prejudice and nothing on face of order prohibited him from filing
amended supplemental petition).

     Despite the use of “Final Order” in its title, the appealed order
otherwise lacks sufficient language of finality to constitute a final
order and does not fit within the limited categories of appealable,
nonfinal orders in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).
“[W]here it remains unclear whether the order is intended to be
final or nonfinal, it is proper to dismiss the appeal as premature
because the order does not contain sufficient language of finality
to constitute a final order.” Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d
1009, 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

     Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review
the trial court’s order dismissing Former Husband’s petition.

    APPEAL DISMISSED.

EDWARDS, C.J., HARRIS, and SOUD, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  2