Viker v. Cherry

226 So. 3d 1082, 2017 WL 4766895
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 27, 2017·No. CASE NO. 1D17-2865·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Court has determined that the May 5, 2017, order partially ruling on a petition to modify parenting schedule and child support is not a final order. See Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Furthermore, although the order was subject to immediate appellate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)b., appellant failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review the order in a timely manner. Ward v. Bragg, 957 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that rehearing of a non-final order is not authorized and does not delay rendition). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BILBREY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Viker v. Cherry, 226 So. 3d 1082, 2017 WL 4766895 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

226 So. 3d 1082 (Viker v. Cherry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ward v. Bragg
957 So. 2d 670 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Hoffman v. O'CONNOR
802 So. 2d 1197 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)