RICHARD TICKTIN v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEVEN HOWARD TICKTIN (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

RICHARD TICKTIN, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEVEN HOWARD TICKTIN, Appellee.

No. 4D22-1129

Decided: November 30, 2022

Peter Ticktin and Michael J. McCormick, Jr. of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant. Alexandra V. Rieman of GAPS Legal, PLLC, Sunrise, for appellee Steven Howard Ticktin. Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee Kim Goldmintz, a/k/a Kim Hope Goldmintz.

Richard Ticktin appeals the summary judgment which denied Ticktin's motion to discharge his former wife as guardian advocate for their adult son. We affirm. As acknowledged by the appellees during oral argument, our ruling does not preclude the lower court from considering Ticktin's motion for interim judicial review, where he raised issues related to timesharing with his son.

Ticktin also appeals the lower court's ruling on the appellees’ entitlement to attorney's fees. We dismiss that portion of the appeal. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 319 So. 3d 65, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order merely finding entitlement to attorney's fees is a non-final, non-appealable order.”).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

PER CURIAM.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, 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Out of date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