The issue was whether a trial court\u2019s order denying exceptions to a general magistrate\u2019s report and affirming the report, with several exceptions, was appealable as a final order or an appealable non-final order.<\/p>\n
We represented the Father of an infant child in a contentious custody dispute over timesharing and other issues. A general magistrate entered a report with recommendations regarding a time-sharing schedule, child support, and daycare for the child.\u00a0 The general magistrate also found that the Father had been involuntarily absent from the child\u2019s life due to the Mother\u2019s actions and her failure to facilitate a relationship between the Father and child.\u00a0 The trial court judge affirmed and implemented the magistrate\u2019s report with several exceptions, and the Mother appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n
We filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing (1) that the trial court\u2019s order was neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), and (2) that the appeal should be dismissed based on the Mother\u2019s failure to file an Initial Brief within the time frame required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(e).\u00a0 The court of appeals granted our motion, and we succeeded in obtaining dismissal of the Mother\u2019s appeal for our client.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The issue was whether a trial court\u2019s order denying exceptions to a general magistrate\u2019s report and affirming the report, with several exceptions, was appealable as a final order or an appealable non-final order. We represented the Father of an infant child in a contentious custody dispute over timesharing and other issues. A general magistrate entered…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1811,1807,1806],"tags":[1858,1918,1851,1848,1919,1866,1882,1920,1921],"class_list":["post-2235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4th-dca-rulings","category-bresky-appellate-cases","category-family","tag-appeal","tag-appealable","tag-appeals","tag-appeals-process","tag-custody","tag-florida-rule-of-appellate-procedure","tag-fourth-district-court-of-appeals","tag-magistrate","tag-motion"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}