Smithers v. Smithers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smithers v. Smithers

743 So. 2d 605, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 1999 WL 817837

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1999

DocketNo. 99-2692

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 743 So. 2d 605 (Smithers v. Smithers) 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

Smithers v. Smithers, 743 So. 2d 605, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 1999 WL 817837 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, J.

We dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari, as the petitioner/husband has failed to show irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Petitioner seeks relief from an order which denied his motion to bifurcate the issue of his count to annul the purported marriage, and to try that count first. While we are inclined to agree that such a procedure would not only serve judicial economy, but would also dramatically limit the parties’ litigation costs, already in six figures, if the annulment were granted, we cannot say the trial court’s denial was an abuse of discretion. Moreover, we have repeatedly held that time, trouble and expense of proceeding to trial, even if error is ultimately established, does not present that kind of irreparable harm that would invoke our certiorari jurisdiction. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Continental Equities, Inc. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 558 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

DISMISSED.

STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, J.

We dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari, as the petitioner/husband has failed to show irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Petitioner seeks relief from an order which denied his motion to bifurcate the issue of his count to annul the purported marriage, and to try that count first. While we are inclined to agree that such a procedure would not only serve judicial economy, but would also dramatically limit the parties’ litigation costs, already in six figures, if the annulment were granted, we cannot say the trial court’s denial was an abuse of discretion. Moreover, we have repeatedly held that time, trouble and expense of proceeding to trial, even if error is ultimately established, does not present that kind of irreparable harm that would invoke our certiorari jurisdiction. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Continental Equities, Inc. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 558 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

DISMISSED.

STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 So. 2d 605, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 1999 WL 817837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithers-v-smithers-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack