Manucy v. Yurgalewicz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manucy v. Yurgalewicz

906 So. 2d 1227, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11106, 2005 WL 1691020

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-2364

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 906 So. 2d 1227 (Manucy v. Yurgalewicz) 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

Manucy v. Yurgalewicz, 906 So. 2d 1227, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11106, 2005 WL 1691020 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance, which the Court treats as a response to its show cause order of June 7, 2000, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order on appeal is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfi-nal order.

An order dissolving the marriage but reserving jurisdiction over issues such as child support, child custody, alimony and/or property issues, is not final. Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Klein v. Klein, 551 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Thus, the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine personal property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order. For this reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The ap[1228]*1228pellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance is denied.

DISMISSED.

KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance, which the Court treats as a response to its show cause order of June 7, 2000, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order on appeal is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfi-nal order.

An order dissolving the marriage but reserving jurisdiction over issues such as child support, child custody, alimony and/or property issues, is not final. Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Klein v. Klein, 551 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Thus, the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine personal property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order. For this reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The ap[1228]*1228pellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance is denied.

DISMISSED.

KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 1227, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11106, 2005 WL 1691020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manucy-v-yurgalewicz-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack