Hawkins v. Hawkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hawkins v. Hawkins

48 So. 3d 943, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18681, 2010 WL 4837609

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2010

Docket1D10-5103

StatusPublished

This text of 48 So. 3d 943 (Hawkins v. Hawkins) 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

Hawkins v. Hawkins, 48 So. 3d 943, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18681, 2010 WL 4837609 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order on appeal fails to distribute the proceeds from the sale of the partitioned properties. Accordingly, it is neither a final order nor a non-final order for which an interlocutory appeal may be prosecuted under rule 9.130(a)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (“[a] final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary”); Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (dismissing appeal from order of dissolution of marriage that reserved jurisdiction to determine equitable distribution).

DISMISSED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, AND THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order on appeal fails to distribute the proceeds from the sale of the partitioned properties. Accordingly, it is neither a final order nor a non-final order for which an interlocutory appeal may be prosecuted under rule 9.130(a)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (“[a] final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary”); Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (dismissing appeal from order of dissolution of marriage that reserved jurisdiction to determine equitable distribution).

DISMISSED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, AND THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 943, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18681, 2010 WL 4837609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-hawkins-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack