PAUL D. FINNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
WONDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Piecemeal Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
[*584] ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a non-final order granting appellees’ motion to discharge a lis pendens and dismissing three counts of a five-count complaint.
The granting of a motion to discharge a lis pendens is not among those non-final orders from which an appeal will lie,1 but we may consider the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari.2 To succeed, appellant must show that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, and this he has not done.
The same principle applies to the dismissal of the first three counts of the complaint. Unless they constitute separate and distinct causes of action not interdependent with other pleaded claims,3 they may not be appealed in a piecemeal fashion, but must await the entry of a final judgment on the remaining counts. North Indialantic Homeowners Association, Inc., v. Bogue, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Kingsland v. National Advertising Co., 384 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The dismissed counts are interdependent with the counts that remain and cannot be appealed until after final judgment.
Certiorari is denied as to the discharge of the lis pendens and the appeal of the order dismissing Counts I, II and III is dismissed without prejudice to an appeal following final judgment.
Certiorari DENIED, appeal DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . Rule 9.130, Fla.R.App.P. (1977).
. Rule 9.040(c), Fla.R.App.P. (1977).
. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Munilla v. Evelio S. Espinosa and Henry Betancourt, 533 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ond has been reviewed by common law cer-tiorari James v. Wolfe, 512 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); First Southern Development Corporation v. Chandler and Associates, Inc., 472 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Finney v. Wonder Development Corporation, 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Cooper v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), however, it appears that the preferred method should be by non-final appeal and the order under review tested by the same principles as those relating to the issuance of the…
-
Windhover Ass'n, Inc. v. Gulf OIL Realty Co., 407 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…it is a non-appealable non-final order. Petnuch v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A non-final order not susceptible to appeal may be reviewed by common law cer-tiorari if the proper criteria are met. Finney v. Wonder Development Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Among those criteria is the necessity of showing that a remedy by appeal is inadequate. When a final judgment of dismissal is entered as to defendant Craig, if it does finally dismiss him from the case that order will be appeala…
-
ONE Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 417 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…on-final order appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Fetters v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 399 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Finney v. Wonder Development Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); North Indiaiantic Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bogue, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Robertson v. Florida Rock & Tank Lines, Inc., 385 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Kingsland v. Nat’l Adv. Co., 384 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 5th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Blanche Harris Kingsland v. Nat'l Advertising Co., 384 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Codomo, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)