Dmitry Lysich v. Anna Canelo f/k/a Anna Lysich

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 12, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1823
Lower Tribunal No. 21-8916-FC-04
________________
Dmitry Lysich,
Appellant,
vs.
Anna Canelo f/k/a Anna Lysich ,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria Del
Pino, Judge.
Dmitry Lysich, in proper person.
No Appearance, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Dmitry Lysich appeals the trial court’s Order Correcting Final
Order on Child Support Entered on May 14, 2024, which reserved jurisdiction

2
to enter an order establishing the child support arrearages owed. We issued
an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as
one taken from a non-final, non-appealable order.
Having reviewed Appellant’s response, we dismiss this case without
prejudice to either party’s right to file a timely notice of appeal once the trial
court renders a final order addressing the arrearages. See Pool v. Bunger,
43 So. 3d 837, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Having considered Appellant’s
response to the order to show cause and Appellee’s reply, we conclude that
the order on appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order.
The order is not a final order because the trial court’s judicial labor is not
complete, as reflected by the express reservation of jurisdiction to determine
the amount of Appellant’s child support arrearages. The order is not an
appealable 	nonfinal 	order 	under 	[Florida Rule 	of 	Appellate 	Procedure]
9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) 	because, 	although 	it 	addresses 	matters 	concerning
visitation, 	the 	order 	does 	not 	terminate 	Appellant’s 	visitation 	rights 	or
otherwise determine ‘the right to immediate . . . child custody.’ . . . Because
the order on appeal is not a final order or an appealable nonfinal order, this
appeal is dismissed without prejudice to either party’s right to file a timely
notice of appeal after a final order has been rendered by the trial court.”
(citations omitted)); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(a) (providing for review

3
of 	nonfinal 	orders 	that 	determines 	in 	family 	law 	matters 	“the 	right 	to
immediate monetary relief”); Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561, 562 n.1
(Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (reviewing a dissolution order that reserved jurisdiction
to determine amount of arrearages as a nonfinal order and limiting review to
those portions of the order determining the “right to immediate monetary
relief”).
Appeal dismissed.