DUNAJ v. WORLEY (2024)

Appellant Rebekah Dunaj appeals several orders concerning custody and child support obligations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion as its ruling was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Richardson v. Richardson, 442 So. 2d 1005, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Therefore, we affirm.

To the extent that Appellant Dunaj seeks review of an order entered after the appeal was filed, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. We do not have jurisdiction to consider matters not properly before this Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h) (“[T]he court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice.”); Santos v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for Holders of the GSAA Home Equity Tr. 2005-07, 258 So. 3d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Pursuant to this rule, Florida appellate courts deny review of judicial acts occurring after the filing of a notice of appeal.”); Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (“This court cannot review judicial acts of a trial court taking place after the filing of a notice of appeal unless those judicial acts are themselves made the subject of a new notice of appeal or other appropriate appellate proceedings.”).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

PER CURIAM.