Manucy v. Yurgalewicz
906 So. 2d 1227
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2005
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance, which the Court treats as a response to its show cause order of June 7, 2000, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order on appeal is a final order or otherwise appealable nonfi-nal order.

An order dissolving the marriage but reserving jurisdiction over issues such as child support, child custody, alimony and/or property issues, is not final. Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Klein v. Klein, 551 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Thus, the order on appeal, which retains jurisdiction to determine personal property distribution in the event of a disagreement between the parties, is a nonfinal order. For this reason, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The ap*1228pellant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance is denied.

DISMISSED.

KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.