BAY & GULF LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHATEAU TOWER, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Bay & Gulf Laundry Equipment appealed a summary judgment order, and Chateau Tower moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the judgment only resolved one of three counts. The appellate court denied the motion, clarifying that the amended final judgment on remand disposed of all counts and was therefore appealable, while also correcting misinterpretation of Florida Appellate Rule 9.110(k).
The amended final judgment on remand, which disposed of the entire case and all three counts, is a final and appealable order. Florida Rule 9.110(k) does not make all partial judgments immediately appealable; it only allows partial final judgments that are unrelated to remaining portions of the case to be appealable, and provides that most interrelated partial judgments are appealable only at the end of the case.
[1] An amended final judgment that clearly disposes of all counts of a complaint renders the order appealed from a final and thus appealable order.
[2] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) provides that partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the f…
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“Rule 9.110(k) does not so provide. It is important to note that the exact text of that portion of the new rule is 'partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case.'”
Clarifies the correct interpretation of Rule 9.110(k), distinguishing between partial final judgments and all partial judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Bay & Gulf Laundry Equipment filed a complaint with three counts against Chateau Tower. The trial court entered a summary judgment order tha…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.110(K) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*616] ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal alleging that the summary judgment herein only disposed of one out of three counts of appellant’s complaint. The summary judgment order was ambiguous as to whether it was meant to dispose of all counts in the complaint. This court relinquished jurisdiction and the trial court entered an “Amended Final Judgment After Remand” which clearly disposed of all counts of the complaint by summary judgment in favor of defendant. Because the whole cause was disposed of below, the order appealed from is a final order and thus appealable.
Ordinarily, we would not write an opinion merely to deny the motion to dismiss in such a case.
However, we deem it necessary to discuss a contention made by appellant’s attorney in the response to the motion to dismiss concerning new rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective January 1, 1985. In arguing that the order herein is appealable even if it only disposed of count I, appellant contends that “Rule 9.110(k) Fla.R.App.P. provides that partial summary judgments are reviewable as final orders.” Rule 9.110(k) does not so provide. It is important to note that the exact text of that portion of the new rule is “partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case.” [Emphasis supplied]. The commentary to the rule states that subsection (k) was added to remedy a pitfall under Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974).
Mendez held that certain partial judgments, which are unrelated to remaining portions of the case, are immediately appealable as final judgments in themselves and, further, that they are not appealable at the end of the case. Case law subsequent to Mendez makes it clear that most partial judgments are interrelated with remaining portions of the case and thus not final and not immediately appealable.1 The intent and wording of the new rule was to make final partial judgments also appealable at the end of the case. The rule does not make all partial judgments immediately appealable nor does it expand in any way the class of orders immediately appealable.
Although appellant’s attorney does not correctly interpret rule 9.110(k), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, because the order appealed from disposes of the whole case as appellant alternatively contends, appellee’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur. . See cases cited in Haddad, Partial Final Judgments: A Persistent Problem in Appellate Practice, 52 Fla.Bar J. 204 (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Pellegrino v. Jeffrey Horwitz, M.D., 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…is not a substantive modification of the right to appeal. It “does not make all partial judgments immediately appealable nor does it expand in any way the class of orders immediately appealable.” Bay & Gulf Laundry Equip. Co. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Palm Beach Newspapers; Stein v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 481 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Here, both the contract count and the tort count involve the same transaction and the same set of common facts—the treatment and c…
-
Hallock v. Holiday Isle Resort & Marina, Inc., 885 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…the final judgment in the entire case.” However, Florida case law holds that this exception only applies to partial judgments which are unrelated to the remaining portions of the case. See Bay & Gulf Laundry Equip. Co., Inc. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Thus, not all partial judgments are immediately appealable. In the case before us, as it applies to Tosun, the January 28, 2003 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Summary Final Judgment is not a fina…
-
Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C., 51 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…party; and the “1984 amendment to the appellate rule ‘does not make all partial judgments immediately appealable nor does it expand in any way the class of orders immediately appeal-able.’ Bay & Gulf Laundry Equip. Co., Inc. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).” Campbell v. Gordon, 674 So. 2d 788, 786 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Where all parties remain in a case after an order is entered, the order cannot be said to dispose…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)