STUART TAYLOR AND SARAH TAYLOR, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Payment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellants, Stuart and Sarah Taylor, were plaintiffs below and suffered a dismissal of their complaint for failure to pay costs taxed against them for a previous voluntary dismissal. The second dismissal was entered on July 25, 1980, and resulted from a “Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice.” The order of dismissal did not state that the cause was dismissed with prejudice, but it did adjudicate that “this cause is hereby dismissed.” It was not simply an order that granted the motion. Therefore, the order was final and appealable. Gries Investment Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Just as occurred in the Gries case, more than thirty days elapsed and, thereafter, on September 24, 1980, the trial court entered an amended order allowing plaintiffs fifteen days to pay the delinquent costs, which were then paid. A “final judgment” was then entered on August 19, 1981, and the plaintiffs undertook an appeal, which includes the order of July 25, 1980. The appellees have moved to dismiss on the basis that the appeal is untimely, since the final order of dismissal dated July 25, 1980, was not appealed within thirty days. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). We agree. See Gries, 388 So. 2d at 1283; Napp v. Dieffenderfer, 364 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Accordingly, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Lawler, M.D. v. Harris, 418 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ssal, the words “with prejudice” actually adding nothing of legal consequence, and therefore such is not a final, appealable order. Gries Investment Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Cf. Taylor v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 405 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We concur, in regard to the order’s lack of finality, with the Gries opinion. We also agree with its solution to the problem: a temporary relinquishment, of an inchoate jurisdiction rather than a non-productive and wasteful dis…
-
Salasky v. Humana Hosp. Kissimmee Auxiliary, Inc., 478 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ners of Madison County v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla.1983), “An order on a motion to dismiss may not be final, but an order which actually dismisses the complaint is.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Taylor v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 405 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Raphael v. earner, 194 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Here the order actually dismissed the complaint and therefore it was a final, appeala-ble order. The order in B…
-
Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 487 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…that the enactment of Section 743.07 will not automatically alter support obligations incurred prior to the effective date of the statute. Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Mahaffey v. Harper, 405 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Gilman v. Dozier, 388 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Burgdorf v. Burgdorf 372 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Nevertheless, support orders entered prior to July 1,1973, may be modified upon filing a petition for modification pur…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Napp v. Dieffenderfer, 364 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)