E.M.A. v. In Re: Estate of Malcolm Joel Dorman (consol. with Azrack v. McDonald)
In consolidated probate appeals, the Third District held it lacked jurisdiction over orders denying post-judgment motions because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 is unavailable in a non-adversary probate proceeding (so the motion was 'unauthorized' under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5)), and rule 9.170 does not reach non-final orders. It affirmed the paternity portion of the homestead judgment because the appellant failed to challenge the independent alternative ground (that the property was not protected homestead), waiving the issue and rendering any paternity error harmless.
Key facts
- E.M.A. and another appellant appealed orders in consolidated probate cases concerning the estate of Malcolm Joel Dorman and a related matter, including determinations regarding homestead property rights and paternity.
- The trial court denied post-judgment motions filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and issued a final judgment addressing homestead entitlement, paternity, and attorney's fees, with the appellants challenging aspects of the homestead and paternity determinations.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners get a crisp, citable rule that rule 1.540 motions (and motions for reconsideration) filed in non-adversary probate proceedings are unauthorized and non-appealable — a trap that can forfeit appellate review… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.