Fischer v. Fischer

2 Citing cases

  1. Rojas v. Otero

    No. 3D23-1113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2024)

    A blanket reservation for modification of the final judgment is erroneous as a matter of law, warranting reversal. See Knecht v. Palmer, 252 So.3d 842, 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (reversing the trial court's reservation "for modification of any provision" in the final judgment); Fischer v. Fischer, 224 So.3d 919, 919-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (dismissing the appeal because the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction "to determine the disposition" of the parties' property rendered the judgment a nonfinal order); Encarnacion v. Encarnacion, 877 So.2d 960, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("At the time a judgment of dissolution of marriage becomes final, the parties' property rights, if determined by the judgment, are fixed as a matter of law.").

  2. Demming v. Demming

    251 So. 3d 284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Holding circuit court's order that "ratified, approved, and incorporated" magistrate's report, and "adopted" magistrate's recommendation, was final, appealable order

    "The retention of jurisdiction over a matter, notwithstanding the issuance of an order, suggests judicial labor is not over." Id. at 140 ; accordPool v. Bunger , 43 So.3d 837, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("The order is not a final order because the trial court's judicial labor is not complete, as reflected by the express reservation of jurisdiction to determine the amount of Appellant's child support arrearages."); Demont v. Demont , 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that orders reserving jurisdiction on matters that require further judicial labor are not final); see alsoFischer v. Fischer , 224 So.3d 919, 919–20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (collecting cases).It is no answer to say a court always retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders. If the husband refused to pay what an order specifically required, the court could step in to enforce its earlier order.