GLENN R. DUFFY AND DONNA E. DUFFY, APPELLANTS,
v.
REALTY GROWTH INVESTORS, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order dismissing two counts of a multi-count counterclaim, holding that the dismissed counts were factually and legally interrelated with the remaining pending claims and therefore not independently appealable.
The order dismissing two counts is not independently appealable because the dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium are factually and legally interrelated with the remaining six pending counts, sharing the same essential circumstances and parties. Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same essential circumstances.
[1] An order dismissing with prejudice less than all counts of a counterclaim is not a final, appealable order if the dismissed claims are interdependent with the remaining c…
[2] Piecemeal appeals are not permitted when the dismissed claims are factually interrelated with claims still pending in the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where claims are interrelated, involve the same essential circumstances, and the same parties remain in the suit.”
Establishes the fundamental rule prohibiting partial appeals of interrelated claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed an eight-count third amended counterclaim and cross-claim against appellees arising from the termination of an alleged contractual re…
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 Interdependent Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice two counts of an eight count counterclaim and cross-claim. Appel-lees moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order appealed is not a final, appealable order nor a non-final order appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We agree and dismiss the appeal upon a holding that the order appealed is not an order finally disposing of claims which are not interdependent with other pleaded claims still pending in the trial court.
Appellants’ eight count third amended counterclaim and cross-claim is based on the following theories of relief: breach of contract, account stated, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and conversion. Each of the counts in the third amended counterclaim and cross-claim arise from appellees’ termination of an alleged contractual relationship they had with appellants, and events and conduct associated with the termination. The trial court granted with prejudice appellees’ motion to dismiss the count alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and the derivative claim for loss of consortium.
Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where claims are interrelated, involve the same essential circumstances, and the same parties remain in the suit. S.L.T. Warehouse Company v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974). The rule contemplates an exception; if a cause of action is pleaded which is not legally or factually interrelated with other pleaded claims, that distinct claim is immediately appealable if the trial court dismisses it with finality.1 Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974).
In the instant case, the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium are factually interrelated with the remaining counts of the counterclaim and cross-claim still pending in the lower court. The same facts and circumstances are involved in proving the emotional distress and loss of consortium counts as are involved in proving the other six claims for relief. The existence of an additional outrageous act which must be proved to support the claim for emotional distress does not make any less true the fact that all the pleaded claims arise from the same set of circumstances and that facts which support that claim are interdependent with facts supporting claims which the order of dismissal left undisturbed. Appellants implicitly recognize that the same facts are pertinent to each count in the counterclaim and cross-claim by incorporating all prior allegations into every count of the pleading.
In dismissing this appeal, we point out that the issues appellants raise are reviewable upon plenary appeal from the final judgment.
DISMISSED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(k) allows review of a partial final order either immediately or upon appeal from the final judgment disposing of the entire case. If a partial final order totally disposes of an entire case as to any party, it must be appealed within 30 days of rendition. The Florida Bar Re: Rules of Appellate Procedure, 463 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.J. Lavey v. Tattoli, 491 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…act, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment) which arose out of the same matters and involve the same defendants as the dismissed count. See Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974); Duffy v. Realty Growth Investors, 466 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). APPEAL DISMISSED. UPCHURCH and COWART, JJ., concur.…
-
Wickenheiser v. Ramm Vending Promotion, Inc., 560 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…er these circumstances the partial summary judgment as to the dismissed counts is not appealable at this time and that part of the appeal is dismissed. See S.L.T. Warehouse Company v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Duffy v. Realty Growth Investors, 466 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); One Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Savings and Loan Association, 417 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Walker, 506 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Taddie Underground Utility Company, Inc. v. Sloan Pump…
-
C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Enter. Bldg. Corp., 497 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…pending, the appeal from the dismissal of the cross-claim is premature. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), petition for review denied, 482 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1986); Duffy v. Realty Growth Investors, 466 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We distinguish City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court, 422 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), because that case involved the ap-pealability of a dismissal of the plaintiffs primary complaint at a time when a cross-claim was still pe…
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
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- The Fla. Bar re: Rules of App. Procedure, 463 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1984)