Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
JUAN O. SEJAS, vs GIOVANNA PAREDES
Case Number: 3D20-118
Judge: Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
On appeal from The Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Giovanna Paredes, in proper person.
Miami, FL - Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with appeals involving post judgment dissolution proceedings.
In this appeal involving postjudgment dissolution proceedings, Juan Sejas
(the former husband) appeals three orders: a December 19, 2019 order granting the
emergency motion of Giovanna Paredes (the former wife) for travel, compelling the
former husband to provide minor children’s passports and execute travel
authorization forms, and granting entitlement to attorney’s fees; and two January
2020 orders, each entitled “Final Judgment Against Garnishee.”
As to the first order, we affirm in all aspects, save one: to the extent that the
former husband contests the trial court’s attorney’s fee determination (paragraphs
eight and nine), that aspect of the order is nonfinal and nonappealable, as it merely
determines entitlement, but not amount. We are therefore without jurisdiction to
review it. Sunrise Air, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 132 So. 3d 298, 299
(Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“To the extent appellate review of entitlement to attorneys' fees
is sought, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”) (citing GEICO Gen. Ins.
Co. v. Williams, 111 So. 3d 240, 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“ ‘[T]he attorney's fee
issue is not finally resolved or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and
amount have been determined.’ ”)). We dismiss that portion of the former husband’s
appeal, without prejudice to the filing of an appeal following entry of an order fixing
As to the two remaining orders, which entered final judgment of garnishment
in favor of the former wife, the former husband has failed to demonstrate that the
trial court committed any error. Instead, the former husband’s claims are largely
directed at determinations made by the trial court in an earlier final judgment entered
in 2019 (which judgment was appealed unsuccessfully by the former husband). We
therefore affirm the two garnishment orders.
Outcome: Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.