Nathanson v. Rishyko

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nathanson v. Rishyko

140 So. 3d 1054, 2014 WL 2480195, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8515

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-938

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 So. 3d 1054 (Nathanson v. Rishyko) 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

Nathanson v. Rishyko, 140 So. 3d 1054, 2014 WL 2480195, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8515 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Nathanson, the Former Wife/Mother, appeals the trial court’s final judgment denying her counter-petition to modify parental responsibility and access, and an order finding her in civil contempt. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the Mother’s modification petition, and affirm on that issue. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980); Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82, 92 (Fla.2011).

The Mother next asserts the trial court erred in adjudicating her in contempt of court because the evidence failed to support a finding that her conduct was intentional. Here, the final judgment “contains no purge provisions because it imposes no sanctions to be avoided.” Stramaglia v. Marubeni Am. Corp., 561 So.2d 433, 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, the trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of sanctions, and thus “the judicial labor has not ended on the contempt issue.” Id. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to review the order on contempt, and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to this issue. This dismissal is without prejudice to the mother’s right to appeal the issue once the trial court has determined sanctions.

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Nathanson, the Former Wife/Mother, appeals the trial court’s final judgment denying her counter-petition to modify parental responsibility and access, and an order finding her in civil contempt. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the Mother’s modification petition, and affirm on that issue. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980); Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82, 92 (Fla.2011).

The Mother next asserts the trial court erred in adjudicating her in contempt of court because the evidence failed to support a finding that her conduct was intentional. Here, the final judgment “contains no purge provisions because it imposes no sanctions to be avoided.” Stramaglia v. Marubeni Am. Corp., 561 So.2d 433, 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, the trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of sanctions, and thus “the judicial labor has not ended on the contempt issue.” Id. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to review the order on contempt, and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to this issue. This dismissal is without prejudice to the mother’s right to appeal the issue once the trial court has determined sanctions.

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 3d 1054, 2014 WL 2480195, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathanson-v-rishyko-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack