Sheri Lynn Kelly v. James Snietka

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sheri Lynn Kelly v. James Snietka

155 So. 3d 1278, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1837, 2015 WL 557189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

Docket4D13-4636

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 155 So. 3d 1278 (Sheri Lynn Kelly v. James Snietka) 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

Sheri Lynn Kelly v. James Snietka, 155 So. 3d 1278, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1837, 2015 WL 557189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in this paternity and support action. We do not address the merits of the issues raised by appellant, as they either were not preserved by objections in the trial court on the grounds raised on appeal, or they lack merit. As to the father’s claim that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the orders entered prior to the final judgment designated in the notice of appeal, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(h) states, “The court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice.” (Emphasis supplied). Thus, this court has jurisdiction to consider the order vacating the prior final judgment and the motion to disqualify the trial judge, as both were issued before the final judgment which is being appealed. Although the appellee relies on Kozell v. Kozell, 142 So.3d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), Kozell is not controlling. In that case, the motion to disqualify which this court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider was filed after the denial of the motion for rehearing of the final judgment sought to be appealed. We have held that a notice of appeal of a final judgment does not bring to the appellate court orders entered after the final judgment unless those orders are also specifically appealed. See Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in this paternity and support action. We do not address the merits of the issues raised by appellant, as they either were not preserved by objections in the trial court on the grounds raised on appeal, or they lack merit. As to the father’s claim that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the orders entered prior to the final judgment designated in the notice of appeal, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(h) states, “The court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice.” (Emphasis supplied). Thus, this court has jurisdiction to consider the order vacating the prior final judgment and the motion to disqualify the trial judge, as both were issued before the final judgment which is being appealed. Although the appellee relies on Kozell v. Kozell, 142 So.3d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), Kozell is not controlling. In that case, the motion to disqualify which this court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider was filed after the denial of the motion for rehearing of the final judgment sought to be appealed. We have held that a notice of appeal of a final judgment does not bring to the appellate court orders entered after the final judgment unless those orders are also specifically appealed. See Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 1278, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1837, 2015 WL 557189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheri-lynn-kelly-v-james-snietka-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack