DENLEY ANN BODKIN, A/K/A DENLEY ANN SWEENEY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD LEE SWEENEY, 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 the appeal regarding temporary custody as untimely and affirmed the child support order due to an inadequate record.
Appellant disputed nonfinal orders regarding temporary custody and child support. The appeal on the custody order was filed late, and no record was pr…
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Acting Chief Judge.
Denley Bodkin disputes the circuit court’s nonfinal orders awarding the former husband temporary custody of the parties’ children (case no. 2D00-2443) and granting his motion to establish child support (case no. 2D00-2754).
We lack jurisdiction to review the nonfi-nal order regarding temporary custody because the appeal was untimely. Ms. Bodkin filed her appeal more than thirty days after the nonfinal order was rendered. A motion for rehearing of a nonfinal order does not suspend the date of rendition of such an order. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Bond, 696 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in case number 2D00-2443.
Ms. Bodkin has not provided a record to support her argument that the circuit court erred in its award of child support in case number 2D00-2754. Without an adequate record of the proceedings below, she cannot demonstrate reversible error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). In this circumstance, the appellate court is compelled to affirm.
GREEN, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Preferred Pools & Spas OF Naples, Inc. v. Beachtree Homes, Inc., 825 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)….1974); Mermel v. Rifkin, 603 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and an unauthorized motion for rehearing that did not stay rendition of the nonfinal order of dismissal. See Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bell v. Geist, 531 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accordingly, there is no timely appeal of an appealable order in this case. We have some concern that the trial court’s ruling in the order granting appel-lees’ motion to dismi…
-
Sexton v. Hernandez, 231 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…a)(3)(C)(iii)(b). However, we lack jurisdiction to review the order because Ms. Sexton’s motion for rehearing did not toll rendition of the order and her notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i); 9.130(b); Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
-
Lovell v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…rification tolled rendition of the January Order and the February Order "incorporates" the January Order. The Lovells are incorrect. A motion for rehearing or clarification does not toll rendition of a nonfinal order. See, e.g., Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Inc. v. Kiss, 510 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (stating that a motion for clarification that "merely ask[s] the trial court to specify the precise grounds on which" its earlier o…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Bond, 696 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)