EMILY RAONA NUNEZ vs BRANDON RAONA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 2022
Docket22-1268
StatusPublished

This text of EMILY RAONA NUNEZ vs BRANDON RAONA (EMILY RAONA NUNEZ vs BRANDON RAONA) 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
EMILY RAONA NUNEZ vs BRANDON RAONA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

EMILY RAONA NUNEZ,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1268 LT Case No. 2017-DR-15425-O

BRANDON RAONA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 30, 2022

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Michael Kraynick, Judge.

Gary S. Israel, of Gary Israel, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Nikie Popovich, of Popovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Emily Raona Nunez appeals the trial court’s nonfinal orders: 1) denying

her motion to continue the hearing on former husband’s motions to

temporarily modify the parties’ parenting plan; 2) granting former husband’s motions for temporary modification; and 3) awarding former husband his

attorney’s fees. We treat Nunez’s appeal of the trial court’s nonfinal order

denying her motion to continue as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny

it. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c). We affirm the trial court’s order granting

temporary modification without further comment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank

of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Finally, because the trial

court’s order awarding former husband his attorney’s fees does not quantify

that award, we are without jurisdiction to review that aspect of the order. See,

e.g., Burns v. Houk, 300 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). We therefore

dismiss this portion of Nunez’s appeal.

AFFIRMED, in part; DENIED, in part; and DISMISSED, in part.

COHEN, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

-2-

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

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
EMILY RAONA NUNEZ vs BRANDON RAONA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emily-raona-nunez-vs-brandon-raona-fladistctapp-2022.