Court Opinion

ID: 4389357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-22 14:02:56.261817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:41.085680
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D19-0556
                  _____________________________

AMBER BROWNER, Wife,

    Appellant,

    v.

TRAVIS BROWNER, Husband,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

                           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
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.
               _____________________________

Clark H. Henderson of Oberliesen & Henderson, Shalimar, for
Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

                                 2