Joseph v. Joseph

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joseph v. Joseph

908 So. 2d 1151, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777, 2005 WL 1991786

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-1746

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 908 So. 2d 1151 (Joseph v. Joseph) 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

Joseph v. Joseph, 908 So. 2d 1151, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777, 2005 WL 1991786 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

The former husband, Richard W. Joseph, appeals the trial court’s final order of dismissal of his “Amendment to Additional Supplemental Petition to Modify Alimony Provisions of the Amended Final Judgment and Orders Related Thereto.” In Case No. 1D03-1510, the former husband appealed the dismissal of his previous petition to modify alimony. Concluding that the trial court was not jurisdictionally barred from considering the petition to modify under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c) and, thus, had erred in dismissing it, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Joseph v. Joseph, 881 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The parties rightfully concede on appeal that Case No. 1D03-1510 controls the instant proceedings. We had not issued our decision, id., when the trial court issued the dismissal order now challenged by the former husband. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the amended supplemental petition, we REVERSE the dismissal order and REMAND for further proceedings.

KAHN, C.J., and THOMAS, J., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

The former husband, Richard W. Joseph, appeals the trial court’s final order of dismissal of his “Amendment to Additional Supplemental Petition to Modify Alimony Provisions of the Amended Final Judgment and Orders Related Thereto.” In Case No. 1D03-1510, the former husband appealed the dismissal of his previous petition to modify alimony. Concluding that the trial court was not jurisdictionally barred from considering the petition to modify under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c) and, thus, had erred in dismissing it, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Joseph v. Joseph, 881 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The parties rightfully concede on appeal that Case No. 1D03-1510 controls the instant proceedings. We had not issued our decision, id., when the trial court issued the dismissal order now challenged by the former husband. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the amended supplemental petition, we REVERSE the dismissal order and REMAND for further proceedings.

KAHN, C.J., and THOMAS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 So. 2d 1151, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777, 2005 WL 1991786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-joseph-fladistctapp-2005.