C.M., Appellant, v. A.M. and W.M., Appellees. (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

C.M., Appellant, v. A.M. and W.M., Appellees.

No. 2D23-523

Decided: April 03, 2024

Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant. Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., of Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa; Jeanne T. Tate of Jeanne T. Tate, P.A., Tampa; and Michael L. Lundy of Older & Lundy, Tampa, for Appellees.

Affirmed in all respects, except that the appeal as to the court's ruling on entitlement to sanctions is dismissed as premature. See Kelly v. HSBC Bank USA Nat'l Ass'n, 240 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“We dismiss the attempt to appeal the order granting in part HSBC's motion for sanctions, because the order only addressed entitlement and not the amount of attorney's fees to be imposed against Kelly. That attempt was premature, and the order on entitlement to sanctions was not an appealable order.”).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

NORTHCUTT and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network