Samuel Lopez v. Remonde Lopez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Samuel Lopez v. Remonde Lopez

190 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11726, 2015 WL 4637184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 2015

Docket4D15-611

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 So. 3d 117 (Samuel Lopez v. Remonde Lopez) 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

Samuel Lopez v. Remonde Lopez, 190 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11726, 2015 WL 4637184 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Father appeals,a post-dissolution order establishing child custody and visitation and setting forth a proposed time-sharing schedule conditioned on the outcome of reunification therapy.

The trial court’s order, rendered September 30, 2014, was a' non-final order *118 under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. (non-final orders include orders determining “the rights or obligations of a party regarding child custody or time-sharing under a parenting plan”). The Father’s notice of appeal was due on October 30, 2014. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).

Before appealing, the Father filed a motion for reconsideration and rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530. The order denying the motion was rendered on January 15, 2015, and the Father filed his notice of appeal on February 13, 2015.

“[A] timely motion for rehearing will suspend rendition of a final order until entry of the order disposing of the motion for rehearing.” Bak v. Bak, 110 So.3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h)). However, “a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders.” Id.; see also Lovelace v. Lovelace, 124 So.3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); El Gohary v. El Gohary, 76 So.3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Deal v. Deal, 783 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

The order at bar, setting forth custody and visitation and proposing a time-sharing schedule conditioned on the successful outcome of reunification therapy, was a non-final order. Because the Father’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the non-final order was rendered, we are required to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

STEVENSON, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Father appeals,a post-dissolution order establishing child custody and visitation and setting forth a proposed time-sharing schedule conditioned on the outcome of reunification therapy.

The trial court’s order, rendered September 30, 2014, was a' non-final order *118 under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. (non-final orders include orders determining “the rights or obligations of a party regarding child custody or time-sharing under a parenting plan”). The Father’s notice of appeal was due on October 30, 2014. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).

Before appealing, the Father filed a motion for reconsideration and rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530. The order denying the motion was rendered on January 15, 2015, and the Father filed his notice of appeal on February 13, 2015.

“[A] timely motion for rehearing will suspend rendition of a final order until entry of the order disposing of the motion for rehearing.” Bak v. Bak, 110 So.3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h)). However, “a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders.” Id.; see also Lovelace v. Lovelace, 124 So.3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); El Gohary v. El Gohary, 76 So.3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Deal v. Deal, 783 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

The order at bar, setting forth custody and visitation and proposing a time-sharing schedule conditioned on the successful outcome of reunification therapy, was a non-final order. Because the Father’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the non-final order was rendered, we are required to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

STEVENSON, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11726, 2015 WL 4637184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-lopez-v-remonde-lopez-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack