JILL A. HOOVER CANCELLARI, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT A. RANCE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court dismissed as moot the appeal challenging a contempt sanction imposing ninety days of make-up visitation because the sanction period had ended, and declined to review the attorney's fees award as not yet final.
An appeal challenging a contempt sanction of temporary make-up visitation is moot once the visitation period has ended, and an order establishing entitlement to attorney's fees without setting the amount is not final and appealable.
[1] An order establishing entitlement to attorney's fees and costs without specifying the amount is a nonfinal, nonappealable order that does not confer jurisdiction for appe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Rance and Jill Cancellari are parents of a ten-year-old daughter with Cancellari having primary custody. Rance filed a motion for contempt base…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Robert Ranee and Jill Cancellari are the parents of a ten-year-old daughter. Can-cellari has primary residential custody of the child. Ranee filed a motion asking the circuit court to hold Cancellari in contempt for her failure to abide by the court’s previous orders concerning Ranee’s visitation with the girl. In its order on the motion, the court placed the child in Ranee’s custody for ninety days’ “make up visitation.” Cancellari challenges that ruling on appeal, and also contests the por tion of the order that requires her to pay Ranee’s attorney’s fees and costs.
There are substantial problems with the circuit court’s order, but the period of “make up visitation” has ended. Therefore, we dismiss as moot the issues addressing the propriety of the contempt determination, the contempt sanction and the order to show cause. We decline to consider Cancellari’s challenge to the court’s imposition of attorney’s fees and costs because the issue is not ripe. Although the order establishes entitlement to fees and costs, it does not set the amount. Consequently, it is a nonfinal, nonap-pealable order and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Our denial of review is without prejudice to Cancel-lari’s right to appeal a subsequent final order that determines the amounts of the fee and cost award.
Dismissed in part, review denied in part.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ginnell v. Pacetti, 31 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ustodial parent”). Affirmed. GROSS, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Because the trial judge has not made an attorney’s fee award, the ruling is not ripe for our determination and we do not consider its propriety. See Cancellari v. Rance, 779 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“We have held in other cases that orders granting attorney’s fees without determining amount are not ripe for appellate review.” (Citations omitted)).…
-
Lombard v. Lombard, 997 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…terest or to otherwise justify this inequity, it is an abuse of discretion. As a general proposition, make-up visitation is granted when the custodial parent has refused visitation to the noncustodial parent. See § 61.13(4)(c); Cancellari v. Rance, 779 So. 2d 373, 373-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); LaLoggia-VonHegel v. VonHegel, 732 So. 2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). By design, it gives the noncustodial parent additional time with his child. We do not suggest that make-up visitation is proper only when the custod…
-
Stover v. Stover (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ustody period with the Father has been completed. . . . Because the trial court's order for temporary custody was error, that order should not be utilized as a basis for a new order for a permanent change of custody."); see also Cancellari v. Rance, 779 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("There are substantial problems with the circuit court's order, but the period of 'make up visitation' has ended. Therefore, we dismiss as moot the issues addressing the propriety of the contempt determination, the contempt…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)