KAREN GOTTLIEB, APPELLANT,
v.
FREDERIC R. GOTTLIEB, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2012-11-28
Nos. 4D12-1038, 4D12-2274, 4D12-2402
WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
127 So. 3d 575 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2012)

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.

Synopsis

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed final judgments entered by the circuit court while a non-final interlocutory appeal was pending, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render final orders disposing of the cause during the pendency of such an appeal.


Holding

No. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to render final orders disposing of the cause while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case was pending. Final Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f) prohibits a lower tribunal from rendering a final order disposing of the cause during the pendency of review of a non-final order.


Headnotes

[1] A lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending review of a non-final order, even in the absence of a stay.

[2] An order determining the right to immediate monetary relief in family law matters is a non-final order subject to interlocutory appeal.

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

Key Quotes

“In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review.”

This quote establishes the controlling rule under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f) that prohibits the trial court from entering final orders while an interlocutory appeal is pending.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Karen Gottlieb appealed a non-final order regarding attorney's fees and costs (case 4D11-2442), filed July 1, 2011. While this interlocutory appeal wa…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The circuit court entered a final judgment on pending post-judgment issues and an amended final money judgment during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal. The appellant has moved to determine appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f). We reverse the final judgments because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to render *576final orders while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case is pending.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f) is controlling and provides: “In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review.” See also Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson, 82 So.3d 137, 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage while two frivolous interlocutory appeals were pending, and before this court sua sponte dismissed the appeals. We reverse the final judgment because the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to render a final order disposing of the case.”).

In case number 4D11-2442, appellant Benjamin Gottlieb1 seeks review of the Order on Benjamin Gottlieb’s Second Amended Motion for Temporary Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Former Husband’s Motion to Dismiss. Such an order is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), which provides that lower courts may review nonfinal orders that determine the “right to immediate monetary relief ... in family law matters.” Appellee contends that the order is a final order because the order fully disposed of the issue before the court-that of the entitlement of appellant Benjamin Gottlieb to an award of attorney’s fees. Although the order disposed of that issue, Benjamin Gottlieb remained a party defendant in the underlying suit and the court did not dispose of the entire cause as to Benjamin.

In the instant case, the circuit court entered the Final Judgment on Pending Post-Judgment Issues and the Amended Final Money Judgment, as well as an order on attorney’s fees. The non-final appeal, filed July 1, 2011, is still pending. Accordingly, the circuit court lacked the jurisdiction to enter the final judgments. See Garciar-Lawson; Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(f).

We reverse the Final Judgment on Pending Post-Judgment Issues, the Amended Final Money Judgment and the order on attorney’s fees. We remand the case to the circuit court. Our reversal is without prejudice to the circuit court reentering the same final judgments after the conclusion of the interlocutory appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw