CHESTER ZAREMBA, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL HARBISON, ET UX., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Final Order Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The procedural aspects of this non-final appeal have been tortuous. Without delineating all of the precedent steps, it appears that the merits of appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal should now be addressed.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. We do not have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130, and Sgrignuoili v. Barakat, 384 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
We choose not to treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari as we might do under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.040. We are of the opinion that appellant will have a full and adequate remedy via plenary appeal. Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
The Motion for Clarification and Renewed Motion to Dismiss appeal are granted.
Appeal dismissed.
HURLEY, WALDEN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Towne v. Vaka LAW Grp., P.L., 216 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…their motion to stay and compel arbitration. To the extent that Towne seeks review of the denial of her motion for judgment on the pleadings, we must dismiss the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130; Zaremba v. Harbison, 462 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). To the extent that Towne seeks review of the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment of liability, we must also dismiss the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Bryant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d…
-
Castro v. Elda Hidalgo, 100 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…terms of the policy, and such a designation is permitted under section 222.18(1), Florida Statutes (2010). We have previously held that we have no jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Zaremba v. Harbison, 462 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court’s work is not at an end. Although the son views the trial court’s order as definitive, the order simply says “denied.” As the trial court explained at the hearing, it did not believe it could rule on the issu…
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wenk v. Tsiotis, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading PA. v. Brim's Food, Inc., 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Ernie Sgrignuoili v. Barakat, 384 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)