HARLEY G. COWLES AND GRACE D. COWLES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
WILLIAM E. PHARES AND NANCY P. PHARES, HIS WIFE, JAMES WESLEY CARTER AND CAROL ANN CARTER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal absent the entry of a written final order or judgment, and a motion for new trial is ineffective until such time.
Following a non-jury trial, the trial court made an oral, conditional ruling and later granted a motion for new trial without a written final order be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal reflects procedural problems. Despite the fact this court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, we now determine that we do not have jurisdiction and do therefore, dismiss the appeal and cross appeal.
Shortly sketching, following a non-jury trial, the trial court orally announced a tentative, conditional ruling and required the future submission of an exhibit. No written final order or judgment has ever been entered or rendered. Sixty-two days after the oral announcement appellees moved for a new trial. It was granted and the trial court, in effect, reopened the case and required that additional parties be served and that other things be done. At this juncture we do not know what final decision the trial court will make — whether for or against the appellants.
This plenary appeal is addressed to the order granting a new trial. The cross appeal is addressed to the oral announcement.
We hold that, absent the entry of a written final order or judgment, the judicial labor in the lower tribunal has not been completed and, therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. We further hold that the motion for new trial was ineffective, at least until such time as a final order or judgment is entered. See City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin’ Chicken of Lincoln Road, Inc., 129 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Giffen Industries, Inc. v. Duncan Plastering Co., 137 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Southern Laundry Co. of Marianna, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 190 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) and SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Dismissed.
LETTS, C.J., and HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phares v. Harley G. Cowles and Grace D. Cowles, 459 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…that the appeal of plaintiffs be dismissed as being premature, there being no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. This court, on May 11, 1983, granted the Motion to Dismiss thereby terminating all appellate proceedings then pending. 430 So. 2d 995. When returned to the trial court, the necessary parties were joined in the litigation and the trial judge entered, on February 1,1984, a written order finding a public road over and upon property owned by Defendant Phares. By order dated February 2…
Authorities Cited
- SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- City OF Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin' Chicken OF Lincoln Rd., Inc., 129 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Giffen Indus., Inc. v. Duncan Plastering Co., Inc., 137 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- E. B. Conoley et ux. v. Naetzker, 137 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- S. Laundry Co. OF Marianna, Inc. v. The Home Ins. Co., 190 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)