State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. McCarthy v. McCarthy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. McCarthy v. McCarthy

645 So. 2d 1082, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1994

DocketNo. 93-02499

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 1082 (State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. McCarthy v. McCarthy) 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

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 645 So. 2d 1082, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellants challenge a final order denying a petition to establish child support filed pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). We affirm the denial of the petition without comment.

The appellants also challenge the trial court’s determination that the appellee is entitled to have his attorney’s fees paid by the appellants with the amount to be set at a later date. However, this court has recently held that an order determining entitlement alone is a nonappealable, nonfinal order. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. v. Newman, 641 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to entitlement to attorney’s fees without prejudice to a subsequent appeal from a final order setting the amount of fees.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellants challenge a final order denying a petition to establish child support filed pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). We affirm the denial of the petition without comment.

The appellants also challenge the trial court’s determination that the appellee is entitled to have his attorney’s fees paid by the appellants with the amount to be set at a later date. However, this court has recently held that an order determining entitlement alone is a nonappealable, nonfinal order. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. v. Newman, 641 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to entitlement to attorney’s fees without prejudice to a subsequent appeal from a final order setting the amount of fees.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 1082, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-ex-rel-mccarthy-v-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack