Dees v. Dees

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dees v. Dees

905 So. 2d 1023, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10449, 2005 WL 1544776

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-1414

StatusPublished

This text of 905 So. 2d 1023 (Dees v. Dees) 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

Dees v. Dees, 905 So. 2d 1023, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10449, 2005 WL 1544776 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

James Ted Dees seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to prevent relocation of Margaret Dawn Dees, the former wife, and the parties’ minor child. In the order for which review is sought, the trial court finds that it is in the child’s best interests to allow relocation. Having considered the appellant’s responses to this Court’s orders of April 5, 2005 and May 5, 2005, this appeal is hereby dismissed as premature because the trial court has retained jurisdiction over the related issue of visitation. See T.H. v. Department of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding order in dependency proceeding was non-final where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrally-related visitation and support issues); Newman v. Newman, 858 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding conditional reservation of jurisdiction allowing parties to determine whether additional judicial labor would be necessary rendered order non-final). Further, the order does not determine child custody and, thus, is not an appealable non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DISMISSED.

VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur and WOLF, J., concurs with written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Ted Dees seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to prevent relocation of Margaret Dawn Dees, the former wife, and the parties’ minor child. In the order for which review is sought, the trial court finds that it is in the child’s best interests to allow relocation. Having considered the appellant’s responses to this Court’s orders of April 5, 2005 and May 5, 2005, this appeal is hereby dismissed as premature because the trial court has retained jurisdiction over the related issue of visitation. See T.H. v. Department of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding order in dependency proceeding was non-final where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrally-related visitation and support issues); Newman v. Newman, 858 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding conditional reservation of jurisdiction allowing parties to determine whether additional judicial labor would be necessary rendered order non-final). Further, the order does not determine child custody and, thus, is not an appealable non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DISMISSED.

VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur and WOLF, J., concurs with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

905 So. 2d 1023, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10449, 2005 WL 1544776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dees-v-dees-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack