EMILY RAONA NUNEZ
v.
BRANDON RAONA
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.
A trial court's nonfinal order denying a motion to continue is reviewed as a petition for writ of certiorari, and a nonfinal order awarding attorney's fees that does not quantify the amount is not reviewable for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a trial court's order awarding attorney's fees when the order does not specify or quantify the amount of the award.
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 intelligenceEmily Raona Nunez appealed nonfinal orders from a family law proceeding in which the trial court denied her motion to continue a hearing on her former…
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 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Emily Raona Nunez appeals the trial court’s nonfinal orders: 1) denying her motion to continue the hearing on former husband’s motions to temporarily modify the parties’ parenting plan; 2) granting former husband’s motions for temporary modification; and 3) awarding former husband his attorney’s fees. We treat Nunez’s appeal of the trial court’s nonfinal order denying her motion to continue as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny it. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c). We affirm the trial court’s order granting temporary modification without further comment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Finally, because the trial court’s order awarding former husband his attorney’s fees does not quantify that award, we are without jurisdiction to review that aspect of the order. See, e.g., Burns v. Houk, 300 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). We therefore dismiss this portion of Nunez’s appeal.
AFFIRMED, in part; DENIED, in part; and DISMISSED, in part. COHEN, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Burns v. Valorie M. Houk, 300 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)