Margulies v. Levy

439 So. 2d 336
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 18, 1983
Docket83-517, 83-525
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 439 So. 2d 336 (Margulies v. Levy) 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
Margulies v. Levy, 439 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

439 So.2d 336 (1983)

Martin Z. MARGULIES, Appellant/Petitioner,
v.
The Honorable David L. LEVY, Judge of the Circuit Court of the 11TH Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida; the Honorable Frederick N. Barad, Judge of the 11TH Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondents, and Regina Tisiker Margulies, Appellee/Respondent.

Nos. 83-517, 83-525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 18, 1983.

Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer & Weil, Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Aaron Podhurst, Miami, for appellant/petitioner.

Sams, Gerstein & Ward, Greene & Cooper and Marc Cooper, Miami, for appellee/respondents.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Martin Margulies, the petitioner in a dissolution action, alternatively appeals from an interlocutory order vacating a previously entered interlocutory order which affirmed the validity of an antenuptial agreement; or seeks review of the second order by certiorari; or seeks a writ of prohibition forbidding the judge from entering the second order. Margulies also seeks a writ of prohibition forbidding the successor judge from revisiting the issue of the validity of the antenuptial agreement.

Interlocutory orders are modifiable by the trial judge at any time before entry of a final judgment. Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282, 129 So. 889 (1930); Alabama Hotel Co. v. J.L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825 (1924); Holman v. Ford Motor Co., 239 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). The order in question is a non-appealable interlocutory order over which we have no jurisdiction. We decline to grant the extraordinary relief requested. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 432 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Appeal dismissed. Certiorari denied. Prohibition denied.

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

Related

Norris v. Norris
28 So. 3d 953 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
ABAMAR HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT INC. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, Inc.
724 So. 2d 572 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Denson v. Meyer
565 So. 2d 758 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Tavormina v. Timmeny
561 So. 2d 681 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Kienzle v. Kienzle
556 So. 2d 1173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Diaz
529 So. 2d 682 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE CTY. v. Diaz
529 So. 2d 682 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Dominguez v. Wolfe
524 So. 2d 1101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Bettez v. City of Miami
510 So. 2d 1242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Diaz v. Public Health Trust of Dade County
492 So. 2d 1082 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Diaz v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE CTY.
492 So. 2d 1082 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 So. 2d 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margulies-v-levy-fladistctapp-1983.