JIMIL M. SHEIKH, APPELLANT,
v.
ZULLE-HUMA MUGHAL-SHEIKH, 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.
Jimil Sheikh appeals multiple family law orders from a trial court regarding custody, child support, and visitation. The appellate court affirms the reviewable order determining shared parental responsibility, primary residential custody with the mother, $600 monthly child support, and an injunction preventing removal of children from Florida, while dismissing three non-final, non-appealable orders regarding miscellaneous motions.
The order in case 5D11-3898 determining custody, child support, and the injunction against child removal is reviewable and affirmed as no error appears on the face of the order. The three remaining cases involving miscellaneous motions are non-final, non-appealable orders, and the court lacks jurisdiction to address them.
[1] A non-final order in a family law matter that determines the right to immediate monetary relief and child custody is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure…
[2] An order granting an injunction is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As the underlying, non-final order determines the right to immediate monetary relief and child custody in a family law matter, it is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of non-final custody and support orders in family law cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimil Sheikh and Zulle-Huma Mughal-Sheikh were married in Pakistan and have two children. The parties resided in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, New Yor…
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 Primary Residential Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Jimil Sheikh and Zulle-Huma Mughal-Sheikh were married in Pakistan and have two children from the marriage. During the course of the marriage, it appears they resided in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, New York, and, most recently, Florida. Florida’s jurisdiction is not in dispute. Mr. Sheikh has filed four separate appeals challenging a wide array of rulings by the trial court.
In case number 5D11-3898, the lower court entered an order following a hearing in which it determined that the parties were to have shared parental responsibility and Mrs. Mughal-Sheikh was to have pi’imary residential responsibility of the minor children. The order also determined there was a need for, and Mr. Sheikh had the ability to pay, $600 in child support per month. Further, the order permanently enjoined Mr. Sheikh from removing the children from the state. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine alimony, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
As the underlying, non-final order determines the right to immediate monetary relief and child custody in a family law matter, it is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii). See also Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So.3d 827, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). To the extent the order granted an injunction, it is also reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). However, no transcript was provided nor was a statement of the evidence or proceedings prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Without an adequate record, we are limited to a review of the order entered by the lower court. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Finding no error apparent on the face of the order, we affirm.
In case numbers 5D11-4325, 5D11-4561, and 5D12-853, Mr. Sheikh appeals the denial of miscellaneous motions.1 These motions range from discovery issues to visitation with the children over past Christmas breaks. Most of the motions are repetitive and seek civil contempt/enforcement or suspension of enforcement of the order in case number 5D11-3898.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 sets forth those non-final orders subject to review. As there are no matters decided by these orders covered by rule 9.130 or otherwise indicating certiora-ri relief is available, these three cases represent non-final, non-appealable orders. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to address those issues. See generally Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (dismissing non-final, non-appealable order for lack of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, we affirm case number 5D11-3898, and dismiss case numbers 5D11-4325, 5D11-4561 and 5D12-853.
SAWAYA, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Letticia Lopez v. Fernandez (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)