HARRIS v. BOHLER (2026)

Appellant challenges the trial court's entry of two final judgments of injunction for protection against stalking, as well as two orders denying her motions to dissolve the injunctions. We affirm the orders denying the motions to dissolve the injunctions, and dismiss the appeal of the final judgments of injunction.

The appeal of the final judgments of injunction is not timely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider that portion of the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) (stating that jurisdiction of the appellate court is invoked “by filing a notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, except as provided in rule 9.140(c)(2)”); Jad v. Abinuman, 427 So. 3d 583, 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026) (dismissing appeal of temporary injunction for protection against stalking because the notice of appeal was filed 34 days after entry of the temporary injunction, resulting in “an irremediable jurisdictional defect”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Shepherd, J.

Klingensmith and Lott, JJ., concur.