FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES E. WARD AND FRANCES WARD, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Fibreboard Corporation appeals the denial of its summary judgment motion raising lack of personal jurisdiction. The court dismisses the appeal because the defendant failed to timely pursue an interlocutory appeal of an earlier, identical motion to dismiss raising the same jurisdictional defense.
A defendant who fails to timely file an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss raising jurisdictional defenses does not waive all appellate review of the jurisdictional issue, but such review must await final disposition of the case rather than being pursued through a later summary judgment motion.
[1] An order denying a motion for summary judgment based on lack of jurisdiction over the person is not an interlocutorily appealable order if the same jurisdictional defense…
[2] Failure to timely appeal a nonfinal order that is otherwise appealable under Fla.App.R. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Failure to timely pursue the interlocutory review afforded by the above Rule does not mean that such defendant waives all right of appellate review of such jurisdictional issue but it does mean that such review must await the normal avenue of appeal after final disposition of the case in the trial court, assuming such defendant is the losing party on the merits.”
Establishes the consequence of failing to timely appeal an interlocutory order: the jurisdictional defense is not waived but review is deferred until final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFibreboard Corporation, a defendant in the trial court, raised a personal jurisdiction defense by motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Proced…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a defendant below, appeals from an order of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion was based upon appellant’s assertion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over its person. Appel-lees have moved to dismiss this appeal. We find the dismissal motion to be well taken.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the denial of a summary judgment motion raising lack of jurisdiction over the person is an interlocutorily appealable order “determining” jurisdiction of the person within the meaning of Fla.App.R. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), the fact is that this appellant had earlier in the litigation raised this same defense by motion to dismiss pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b). That motion, along with an accompanying supporting affidavit, was heard and considered by the trial court which subsequently entered an order denying the motion. That nonfinal order was clearly appealable pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). In order to invoke such right of appellate review on an interlocutory basis, the party seeking review must file a notice of appeal within thirty days from the date of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. This defendant failed to do so but, instead, sought later to again raise the same defense by motion for summary judgment. Failure to timely pursue the interlocutory review afforded by the above Rule does not mean that such defendant waives all right of appellate review of such jurisdictional issue but it does mean that such review must await the normal avenue of appeal after final disposition of the case in the trial court, assuming such defendant is the losing party on the merits. See Ward v. Gibson, 340 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); State ex rel. Eli Lilly v. Shields, 83 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1955).
Accordingly, the appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is Dismissed.
WIGGINTON, NIMMONS and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…is hereby dismissed as untimely filed. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(e); Key West Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 683 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Fibreboard Corp. v. Ward, 455 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…is result does not bar future appellate review of the issue raised in these proceedings. However, such review must await the normal avenue of appeal after final disposition of the case in the trial court. See Wagner; Longo; Fibreboard Corp. v. Ward, 455 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). APPEAL DISMISSED. COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . This court in Smith concluded that the order under review in that case was non-final based on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) and held, "As this rule co…
-
City OF Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s April 7,1994 order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment was an ap-pealable non-final order, and the City failed to appeal the ruling within thirty days. Fi-breboard Corp. v. Ward, 455 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This, however, is not to be construed as a limitation of the City’s right to direct appeal. DISMISSED. GRIFFIN, J., concurs. HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. . Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.13…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. ELI Lilly & Co. v. Honorable Bayard B. Shields, 83 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1955)
- T. C. (Ted) Ward v. Gibson, 340 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)