K.T., Petitioner, v. M.D. a/k/a P.C., Respondent. (2026)

We sua sponte consolidate these cases, both of which seek our review of the lower tribunal's February 10, 2026 temporary time-sharing order. In the first-filed case, no. 6D2026-0583, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, and Emergency Motion for Stay docketed March 9, 2026, Petition for Writ of Prohibition docketed April 6, 2026, and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, and Emergency Motion for Stay docketed April 6, 2026, to the extent they seek substantive relief, are treated as an initial brief in an appeal from the lower tribunal's order because the order is a nonfinal order in a “family law matter[ ]” that determines “the rights or obligations of a party regarding ․ time-sharing.”¹ See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b); Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought ․”). We affirm the lower tribunal order because there is no demonstrated basis for reversal, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a), and we dismiss the second-filed case, no. 6D2026-0639, as a duplicative appeal from the same lower tribunal order.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent the filings in case no. 6D2026-0583 seek a stay of the lower tribunal's order, they are treated as a motion for stay and denied by separate order.

PER CURIAM.

MIZE, GANNAM and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.