SHAVERS v. SHAVERS (2022)

The appeal from the circuit court's order denying a motion to set aside a signed mediation memorandum in a pending dissolution is dismissed as from a nonfinal, nonappealable order.¹ See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(B). The order is not an order modifying the temporary support order in place, nor does the face of the memorandum reflect a change in the temporary orders in place. Furthermore, although the order addresses timesharing and reflects that the parties came to an agreement about timesharing, the trial court has approved but not yet evaluated or agreed to the terms of the parties' agreement. Finally, it is not an order that invalidates a marital settlement agreement.

We note that the agreement memorialized in the memorandum expressly states that the temporary order in effect at the time of mediation shall remain in place following the agreement reached at mediation. Therefore, nothing in this dismissal should be construed as reflecting an alteration of the temporary order in place until such time as ratification and final judgment or further order of the circuit court modifying that temporary order. See, e.g., Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“[G]enerally, 'absent compelling circumstances,' an order for temporary support is ‘final during its lifespan.' ” (quoting Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))).

Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This handwritten memorandum accompanied the report submitted by the mediator to the trial court and was signed by all parties memorializing the agreed results of the mediation. Although the parties disputed the meaning and extent of this agreement, the trial court recognized it as a mediation agreement.

PER CURIAM.

MORRIS, C.J., and VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur.