From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soles v. Soles

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 28, 1988
536 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

holding that the trial court's order, entered after the notice of appeal was filed, "exceeded the scope of the lower court's concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.600 and 9.130(f) as it directly addressed the substance of the matter appealed"

Summary of this case from Kitchen v. Cerullo

Opinion

No. 88-1910.

December 28, 1988.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court, Duval County, Frederick Tygart, J.

Albert H. Mickler, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Michael A. Durant, of Lewis, Paul, Isaac Castillo, Jacksonville, for appellee.


Appellant seeks review of a June 1988 order by which he is required to pay temporary child support. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal the lower court entered an August 1988 order purporting to clarify and modify the June order. We find that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the August order, and that the June order is ambiguous as to the basis of the award. We therefore quash the August order, and reverse the June order.

This action commenced when appellee petitioned for separate maintenance and sought temporary child support. The parties had two children, one who was still a minor and another who had attained the age of 18 and was attending high school. Appellee requested support both for the minor child and for the older one until he graduates. After a hearing the court entered its June 1988 order recognizing that there may not be a legal obligation to support the older child, but suggesting that the parties have a moral obligation in this regard. Appellant was directed to pay weekly child support of $100, until further order.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the lower court thereafter entered its August 1988 order which it deemed to be both a clarification and modification, and which addressed the predicate for the child support which had been previously awarded. This August order exceeded the scope of the lower court's concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.600 and 9.130(f), as it directly addressed the substance of the matter appealed. Since the lower court lacked jurisdiction to amend the appealed order, the subsequent August order must be quashed. See generally, Floyd v. Floyd, 500 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

As to the merits of the June order, the parties are in agreement that support may not be mandated after a child's eighteenth birthday absent a finding of dependency, even if the child is still attending high school. Compare Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), with Evans v. Evans, 456 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); also see Carter v. Carter, 511 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In the present case the court did not find dependency as to the older child. The support award does not specify whether it is for one or both of the children, and the reference to the parties' "moral obligation" creates some ambiguity as to the basis of the award. While the amount awarded is not necessarily improper, we find the order to be inadequate insofar as we are unable to determine whether support is being awarded for one or both of the children.

The August 1988 order is quashed. The June 1988 order is reversed, and the cause remanded.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Soles v. Soles

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 28, 1988
536 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

holding that the trial court's order, entered after the notice of appeal was filed, "exceeded the scope of the lower court's concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.600 and 9.130(f) as it directly addressed the substance of the matter appealed"

Summary of this case from Kitchen v. Cerullo

finding a trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order clarifying and modifying a final order for which Appellant had already filed a notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Lawson v. Bartley

concluding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to clarify and modify a nonfinal order when it was on appeal

Summary of this case from Kaiser v. Onlymoso USA Corp.

concluding that the lower court exceeded its concurrent jurisdiction in clarifying and modifying a non-final order after the appellant had filed a notice of appeal of the non-final order

Summary of this case from Gibraltar Private Bank & Tr. v. Schacht
Case details for

Soles v. Soles

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY J. SOLES, APPELLANT, v. SUSAN S. SOLES, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 28, 1988

Citations

536 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Yurgel v. Yurgel

Wife's petition to modify, although filed within six months of the children living in Florida, had no force…

Waste Pro v. Emerald

Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order on review, we quash the order. See Stack v.…