RUOZZI v. WULFF (2020)

David Ruozzi, the former husband, appeals the trial court's March 25, 2019 “Order Adopting and Ratifying Report and Recommendation of General Magistrate Dated October 22, 2018.” While the March 25, 2019 order “ratified and adopted” the general magistrate's report and recommendations, the order also specifically states that “[a] separate money judgment shall be entered.”

The challenged order is, on its face, non-final, and the trial court has not, to date, entered the referenced “separate money judgment.” Although, on August 14, 2019, a separate panel of this Court entered an unelaborated order denying the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by appellee, Adriana Wulff, the former wife, this August 14, 2019 order was entered prior to any briefing by the parties. We note that, “[u]nder this court's long-standing practice, an order which denies a motion to dismiss the appeal without opinion is an interlocutory ruling which may be revisited by the merits panel.” State v. Bryant, 901 So. 2d 381, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Upon careful review of the entire appellate record, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the March 25, 2019 order because it is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3); Miami-Dade Cty. v. Pozos, 242 So. 3d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The Florida Supreme Court has by rule authorized interlocutory appeals from a limited and narrowly-defined class of nonfinal orders. Interlocutory appeals of nonfinal orders in civil cases are restricted to those enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).”).

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal without prejudice to either party seeking timely appellate review of a final, appealable order, when one is entered by the trial court.¹

Appeal dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We express no opinion as to the merits of the dismissed appeal.

PER CURIAM.