West v. West

District Court of Appeal of Florida

West v. West

492 So. 2d 830, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1794, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9399

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1490

StatusPublished

This text of 492 So. 2d 830 (West v. West) 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

West v. West, 492 So. 2d 830, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1794, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9399 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals a non-final order vacating a previous order which had awarded her a temporary increase in child support pending a final determination on her petition for modification. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Although the trial judge characterized the order appealed from as a “final order,” it is clearly a non-final order because the petition for modification of child support is still pending and undisposed of, and all that the subject order did was to vacate the previous temporary award. As such, we do not find that the order falls within any of the categories listed in Florida Rule of [831]*831Appellate Procedure 9.130. Especially, it does not fall within Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) because it vacates a previous award without substituting an additional obligation therefor. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 432 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ORFINGER, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals a non-final order vacating a previous order which had awarded her a temporary increase in child support pending a final determination on her petition for modification. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Although the trial judge characterized the order appealed from as a “final order,” it is clearly a non-final order because the petition for modification of child support is still pending and undisposed of, and all that the subject order did was to vacate the previous temporary award. As such, we do not find that the order falls within any of the categories listed in Florida Rule of [831]*831Appellate Procedure 9.130. Especially, it does not fall within Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) because it vacates a previous award without substituting an additional obligation therefor. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 432 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ORFINGER, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 830, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1794, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-west-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack