FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley D.
Lennon of Simone Lennon, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant.
R. Rahall of Brett Rahall, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
LaROSE, Chief Judge.
review an order entered in postdissolution proceedings
between Michael Bryan Wamsley and Annmarie Hanecki. Mr.
Wamsley wants us to reverse the trial court's March 31,
2016, "Order vacating January 7, 2016, order confirming
January 6, 2016 Report of General Magistrate." Because
he seeks review of a nonfinal, nonappealable order, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
October 2005 and January 2006, the trial court entered
separate orders dissolving the parties' marriage,
arranging timesharing and parental responsibilities, and
establishing Mr. Wamsley's alimony and child support
obligations. Since then, Mr. Wamsley repeatedly has sought
modification of his financial obligations. Indeed, he has
filed no less than five modification petitions. Yet, Mr.
Wamsley has not pursued relief diligently. Seemingly, his
modus operandi is to file a modification petition and then
trial court's March 31, 2016, order recounts the
procedural history below. A few relevant facts merit mention.
Mr. Wamsley filed a modification petition in August 2010, but
never scheduled a hearing. Consequently, the petition
languished. Several years later, the Florida Department of
Revenue sued to collect Mr. Wamsley's child support
arrears. In September 2014, the trial court established his
arrearage at over $105, 000.
to action by the imposition of this significant financial
obligation, Mr. Wamsley filed a new modification petition in
September 2014. This time, however, he was tenacious. Mr.
Wamsley sought a downward modification of his child support
obligation due to an alleged material and substantial change
in circumstances. In pursuing relief under his September 2014
petition, he argued that the operative pleading was the
long-dormant August 2010 petition. The trial court, after
conducting a hearing and receiving argument from the parties,
disagreed. In the March 31, 2016, order, the trial court
reasoned that Mr. Wamsley abandoned the August 2010 petition
when he filed the September 2014 petition. Consistent with
this rationale, the order succinctly stated that the
September 2014 petition "is the only remaining operative
pleading . . . ." To date, the trial court has rendered
no decision on the merits of any modification petition filed
by Mr. Wamsley.
crux of Mr. Wamsley's appeal is this: which modification
petition is operative? He urges us to adopt the August 2010
petition. Ms. Hanecki, in contrast, argues in support of the
trial court's March 31, 2016, order.
not enter the fray. The March 31, 2016, order is nonfinal and
nonappealable. That order did not reach the merits of Mr.
Wamsley's efforts to modify his support obligations. It
merely determined the operative petition upon which Mr.
Wamsley could proceed.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 lists the grounds upon
which a litigant may appeal a nonfinal order. As to family
law matters, the rule allows for appeals of nonfinal orders
that determine "the right to immediate monetary
relief"; "the rights or obligations of a party
regarding child custody or timesharing under a parenting
plan"; or "that a marital settlement ...