Goslin v. Preisser

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goslin v. Preisser

148 So. 3d 869, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17684, 2014 WL 5462517

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-1608

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 So. 3d 869 (Goslin v. Preisser) 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

Goslin v. Preisser, 148 So. 3d 869, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17684, 2014 WL 5462517 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former wife, seeks review of a non-final order denying her motion to compel Appellee, the former husband, to undergo an independent psychosexual evaluation as part of an ongoing dispute over the timesharing schedule for the parties’ three minor children. We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by appeal because the order did not determine the parties’ timesharing rights. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii); Pool v. Bunger, 43 So.3d 837, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by certiorari because the order merely denies a discovery request and any resulting harm can be remedied on appeal. See Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181,182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Unlike situations where a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag1 orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.”); Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[T]his court has adhered to the view that orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former wife, seeks review of a non-final order denying her motion to compel Appellee, the former husband, to undergo an independent psychosexual evaluation as part of an ongoing dispute over the timesharing schedule for the parties’ three minor children. We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by appeal because the order did not determine the parties’ timesharing rights. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii); Pool v. Bunger, 43 So.3d 837, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We do not have jurisdiction to review the order by certiorari because the order merely denies a discovery request and any resulting harm can be remedied on appeal. See Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181,182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Unlike situations where a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag1 orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.”); Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[T]his court has adhered to the view that orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 3d 869, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17684, 2014 WL 5462517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goslin-v-preisser-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack