Ebeling v. Ebeling

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ebeling v. Ebeling

452 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13723

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1984

DocketNo. AY-319

StatusPublished

This text of 452 So. 2d 1001 (Ebeling v. Ebeling) 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

Ebeling v. Ebeling, 452 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

This cause is before us on petition for certiorari brought pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, to review the decision of the circuit court in entering a judgment dissolving a marriage but retaining jurisdiction to later decide all other issues. The circumstances here may or may not rise to the level necessary to make split-proceedings in the best interests of the parties as required by our Florida Supreme Court in Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1980). We do not need to make that determination for petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice that she has suffered as a result of the action taken by the trial court. This lack of prejudice is especially apparent because of the representation made of respondent’s consent for the entry of any order necessary to maintain the status quo as to the unresolved issues. We therefore, within the discretion vested in us, deny the issuance of the writ requested.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.

SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

This cause is before us on petition for certiorari brought pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, to review the decision of the circuit court in entering a judgment dissolving a marriage but retaining jurisdiction to later decide all other issues. The circumstances here may or may not rise to the level necessary to make split-proceedings in the best interests of the parties as required by our Florida Supreme Court in Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1980). We do not need to make that determination for petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice that she has suffered as a result of the action taken by the trial court. This lack of prejudice is especially apparent because of the representation made of respondent’s consent for the entry of any order necessary to maintain the status quo as to the unresolved issues. We therefore, within the discretion vested in us, deny the issuance of the writ requested.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.

SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebeling-v-ebeling-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack