Ticktin v. Ticktin

Full title: RICHARD TICKTIN, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEVEN HOWARD TICKTIN…

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

Date published: Nov 30, 2022

No. 4D22-1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2022)

Opinion

4D22-1129

11-30-2022

RICHARD TICKTIN, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEVEN HOWARD TICKTIN, Appellee.

Peter Ticktin and Michael J. McCormick, Jr. of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant. Alexandra V. Rieman of GAPS Legal, PLLC, Sunrise, for appellee Steven Howard Ticktin. Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee Kim Goldmintz, a/k/a Kim Hope Goldmintz.

Per Curiam.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Charles M. Greene, Judge; L.T. Case No. 20-3090 MHC.

Peter Ticktin and Michael J. McCormick, Jr. of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Alexandra V. Rieman of GAPS Legal, PLLC, Sunrise, for appellee Steven Howard Ticktin.

Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee Kim Goldmintz, a/k/a Kim Hope Goldmintz.

Per Curiam.

Richard Ticktin appeals the summary judgment which denied Ticktin's motion to discharge his former wife as guardian advocate for their adult son. We affirm. As acknowledged by the appellees during oral argument, our ruling does not preclude the lower court from considering Ticktin's motion for interim judicial review, where he raised issues related to timesharing with his son.

Ticktin also appeals the lower court's ruling on the appellees' entitlement to attorney's fees. We dismiss that portion of the appeal. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 319 So.3d 65, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("An order merely finding entitlement to attorney's fees is a non-final, non-appealable order.").

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

Ciklin, Levine and Kuntz, JJ., concur.