Inman v. Inman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Inman v. Inman

26 So. 3d 724, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1379, 2010 WL 445425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 2010

Docket4D09-194

StatusPublished

This text of 26 So. 3d 724 (Inman v. Inman) 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

Inman v. Inman, 26 So. 3d 724, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1379, 2010 WL 445425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial judge essentially reserved jurisdiction to determine which item of the husband’s property would be subject to a lien to secure the wife’s alimony payments. The trial judge reasonably took this action as a result of the husband’s mistaken belief that a certain asset could be encumbered. As a result, a term in the parties’ mediation agreement could not be completely fulfilled. Athough the final judgment had the effect of terminating the marriage and finally adjudicating certain issues, procedurally it did not bring an end to the judicial labor required in this case. Therefore, the order is not appeal-able as a final order. See Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to either party’s right to file a timely notice *725 of appeal after a final order has been rendered by the trial court.

GROSS, C.J., MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial judge essentially reserved jurisdiction to determine which item of the husband’s property would be subject to a lien to secure the wife’s alimony payments. The trial judge reasonably took this action as a result of the husband’s mistaken belief that a certain asset could be encumbered. As a result, a term in the parties’ mediation agreement could not be completely fulfilled. Athough the final judgment had the effect of terminating the marriage and finally adjudicating certain issues, procedurally it did not bring an end to the judicial labor required in this case. Therefore, the order is not appeal-able as a final order. See Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to either party’s right to file a timely notice *725 of appeal after a final order has been rendered by the trial court.

GROSS, C.J., MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 So. 3d 724, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1379, 2010 WL 445425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inman-v-inman-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack