K. T. v. M. D. A/K/A P. C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K. T. v. M. D. A/K/A P. C.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2026

Docket6D2026-0639

StatusPublished

This text of K. T. v. M. D. A/K/A P. C. (K. T. v. M. D. A/K/A P. C.) 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

K. T. v. M. D. A/K/A P. C., (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case Nos. 6D2026-0583, 6D2026-0639 CONSOLIDATED Lower Tribunal No. 2025-DR-011648-O _____________________________

K.T.,

Petitioner,

v.

M.D. a/k/a P.C.,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Diana M. Tennis, Judge.

Appellant,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Diana M. Tennis, Judge.

April 15, 2026 PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these cases, both of which seek our review of the

lower tribunal’s February 10, 2026 temporary time-sharing order. In the first-filed

case, no. 6D2026-0583, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, and

Emergency Motion for Stay docketed March 9, 2026, Petition for Writ of Prohibition

docketed April 6, 2026, and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, and

Emergency Motion for Stay docketed April 6, 2026, to the extent they seek

substantive relief, are treated as an initial brief in an appeal from the lower tribunal’s

order because the order is a nonfinal order in a “family law matter[]” that determines

“the rights or obligations of a party regarding . . . time-sharing.” 1 See Fla. R. App.

P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b); Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper

remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought . . . .”).

We affirm the lower tribunal order because there is no demonstrated basis for

reversal, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a), and we dismiss the second-filed case, no.

6D2026-0639, as a duplicative appeal from the same lower tribunal order.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

MIZE, GANNAM and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.

1 To the extent the filings in case no. 6D2026-0583 seek a stay of the lower tribunal’s order, they are treated as a motion for stay and denied by separate order.

2 Karin S. Gerardin, of Gerardin Law Firm, P.A., Tavares, for Petitioner/Appellant.

No Appearance for Respondent/Appellee.

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

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