We affirm the circuit courts post-judgment order denying appellants objection and motion to vacate a judicial sale of property in the underlying partition action.
Most of appellants arguments are untimely directed at the original final judgment ordering partition and sale, which appellant characterizes as a non-final order. However, the judgment constituted a final order. See Perez v. Jaimot, 326 So. 3d 748, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[A]n order of partition is final at such time as the court directs the sale of the property.”). The order was final even though the court retained jurisdiction to divide the proceeds. See Morrison v. Smolarick, 334 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“A partition order directing the sale of property is final even when the court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of adjusting, by a further decree, the accounts between the parties.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, appellant cannot challenge the final judgment ordering partition.
Appellants remaining arguments also lack merit without further discussion.
Affirmed.
Per Curiam.
Warner, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.