JUAN D. WHIPPLE
v.
CRYSTAL FERGUSON DAWSON
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.
An appeal from an order determining homestead status must be timely filed, and issues not preserved in the trial court or supported by an adequate record cannot be reviewed on appeal.
[1] An order determining homestead status of real property is a final, appealable order.
[2] An appeal from a final order must be timely filed to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To be preserved, the issue or legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court.”
Court's citation to Rhodes v. State for the principle that issues must be preserved at the trial level
Appellant Juan D. Whipple appealed from a circuit court order determining homestead status of real property and other orders in a Miami-Dade County ca…
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 Homestead Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Juan D. Whipple, in proper person. William C. Robinson, for appellees. Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s appeal from the order determining homestead status of real property is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the final order was not timely appealed. See Steele v. Brown, 197 So. 3d 106, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that order determining homestead status “constituted an appealable, final order”). The remaining orders on appeal are affirmed. See Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2d 501, 513 (Fla. 2008) (“To be preserved, the issue or legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court.”) (alteration in original); John Moriarty & Assocs. of Fla., Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., 272 So. 3d 464, 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“In the absence of a transcript of the lower court proceedings, and finding no legal error apparent on the face of the order . . . we cannot conclude the trial court erred in rendering the order under review and therefore affirm.”); N & D Holding, Inc. v. Town of Davie, 17 So. 3d 819, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“It is the appellant’s duty to point out where in the record the alleged error can be substantiated.”).
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2008)
- N & D Holding, Inc. v. Town OF Davie, 17 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Steele v. Pansy Brown, 197 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- John Moriarty & Assoc. of Fla. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., 272 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)