Background
Peter Liggatt appealed a non-final order entered in the parties’ family-law case by the Circuit Court for Orange County. The order gave Susanne Liggatt exclusive authority to retain a realtor and enter into a listing agreement without Peter’s signature.
Peter sought review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. That rule permits certain non-final appeals, including appeals from orders determining the right to immediate possession of property and specified family-law matters involving immediate monetary relief, child custody or time-sharing, or the complete invalidity of a marital agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District held that the order did not fall within any category of appealable non-final orders identified in the opinion. Although Susanne received exclusive authority to select a realtor and execute a listing agreement, the order did not grant her immediate possession of the property or exclude Peter from it.
Because the order affected only the decision about which realtor to retain and the execution of the listing agreement, it did not determine a right to immediate possession of property or another listed basis for interlocutory review. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- An order authorizing one spouse to select a realtor and sign a listing agreement does not, by itself, determine the right to immediate possession of the property.
- Excluding a spouse from the realtor-selection and listing-agreement decisions is distinct from excluding that spouse from the property.
- Because the non-final order did not fit an applicable category under Rule 9.130, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Florida’s authorization for interlocutory review of certain property and family-law orders is limited. A non-final order concerning control over a step in marketing property is not immediately appealable merely because it affects how the property will be listed.
Parties seeking review before final judgment must show that the challenged order actually makes one of the determinations covered by Rule 9.130, rather than simply affecting a related property-management decision.