Koch v. Koch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Koch v. Koch

219 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8923

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 2017

DocketCase No. 2D16-2339

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 3d 1027 (Koch v. Koch) 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

Koch v. Koch, 219 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8923 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Steven A. Koch appeals an order denying his motion to vacate and set aside rulings premised upon Mr. Koch’s allegations of wrongful conduct on the part of his former wife’s attorney. Mr. Koch also appeals an order of enforcement entered in favor of his former .wife in which he was ordered to continue paying his former wife’s health insurance premiums.

To the extent that Mr. . Koch seeks review of the order denying his motion to vacate and set aside rulings, we affirm without further discussion. To the extent that Mr. Koch seeks review of the order of-enforcement, we. must dismiss the appeal as premature because the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l)

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

KELLY and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Steven A. Koch appeals an order denying his motion to vacate and set aside rulings premised upon Mr. Koch’s allegations of wrongful conduct on the part of his former wife’s attorney. Mr. Koch also appeals an order of enforcement entered in favor of his former .wife in which he was ordered to continue paying his former wife’s health insurance premiums.

To the extent that Mr. . Koch seeks review of the order denying his motion to vacate and set aside rulings, we affirm without further discussion. To the extent that Mr. Koch seeks review of the order of-enforcement, we. must dismiss the appeal as premature because the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l)

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

KELLY and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koch-v-koch-fladistctapp-2017.