Crane v. Crane

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crane v. Crane

559 So. 2d 97, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1416, 1990 WL 20402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 97 (Crane v. Crane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crane v. Crane, 559 So. 2d 97, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1416, 1990 WL 20402 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Judge.

This is the appeal of an order denying appellee’s motion for entry of an order of contempt for failure of the appellant/husband to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees to the appellee/wife in a custody modification proceeding. The order appealed recites that the husband would be subject to sanctions in the nature of contempt if the attorney’s fees awarded by the court were not paid by a certain date. Because we find the challenged order is a non-final, non-appealable order, the court does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter. See Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799 (Fla.1931). See also Madden v. Madden, 558 P.2d 669 (Wyo.1977). We decline to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari because we conclude the trial court’s ruling did not depart from essential requirements of law.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, Judge.

This is the appeal of an order denying appellee’s motion for entry of an order of contempt for failure of the appellant/husband to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees to the appellee/wife in a custody modification proceeding. The order appealed recites that the husband would be subject to sanctions in the nature of contempt if the attorney’s fees awarded by the court were not paid by a certain date. Because we find the challenged order is a non-final, non-appealable order, the court does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter. See Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799 (Fla.1931). See also Madden v. Madden, 558 P.2d 669 (Wyo.1977). We decline to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari because we conclude the trial court’s ruling did not depart from essential requirements of law.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 97, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1416, 1990 WL 20402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-crane-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack