AMELCO INVESTMENT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE OF AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
BRYANT ELECTRIC CO., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, 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.
Amelco Investment Corp. sought to appeal a partial summary judgment order dismissing several invoices based on statute of limitations grounds. The court found the order non-final and non-appealable, but treated the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari and affirmed the trial court's ruling that an offer to settle did not toll the statute of limitations.
The partial summary judgment order is non-final and not appealable as a matter of right because the eliminated invoices are interdependent with the remaining claims. However, treating the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari, the court affirmed that an offer to settle does not toll the statute of limitations on the disputed invoices.
[1] An order granting partial summary judgment is not appealable when the remaining claims are interdependent with the claims decided by the partial summary judgment.
[2] Piecemeal appeals are not permitted when claims are legally interrelated, involve the same transaction, and the same parties remain in the lawsuit.
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“Neither of these orders contains words of finality and therefore they are not appealable orders.”
Establishes the threshold requirement for appealability of orders under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmelco filed a complaint seeking approximately $34,000 in damages based on several unpaid invoices from Bryant Electric Co. The trial court granted pa…
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
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant filed a one count complaint seeking approximately $34,000 in damages based upon several unpaid invoices. The trial court entered an order granting partial summary judgment, which eliminated several invoices upon which recovery was sought on the grounds that they were barred by the statute of limitations. The order left pending two invoices, but because the two invoices did not meet the jurisdictional requirement of the circuit court, the cause was transferred to county court. Appellant appealed the order on summary judgment and the order amending order on summary judgment.
Neither of these orders contains words of finality and therefore they are not appealable orders. Morfi v. AIU Insurance Co., 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); and Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Further, the trial court’s order is not an appealable non-final order since the invoices upon which partial summary judgment was entered are interdependent with the pleaded claim remaining in the trial court. Stein v. Hospital Corp. of America, 481 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and Bay & Gulf Laundry Equipment Co., Inc. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve, in substance, the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the law suit. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and Szewczyk v. Bayshore Properties, 456 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
However, since the partial summary judgment cannot be reviewed on plenary appeal from the final judgment in the county court, we will treat the appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari. Chrispen v. Heartz Penske Truck Leasing, Inc., 478 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Having considered the matter, we find the trial court correctly ruled that appellee’s offer to pay $15,000 in full settlement of the $34,000 debt did not toll the statute of limitations on the disputed invoices. Samuel Bingham’s Sons Mfg. Co. v. Metropolis Publ. Co., 119 Fla. 333, 161 So. 426 (1935); and see 35 Fla.Jur.2d Limitations and Laches Section 70. Accordingly, the petition for writ of common law certiorari is denied.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ment is not a final order). Accord Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (en banc); Amelco Investment Corp. v. Bryant Electric Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., 208 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Because the “Order Granting Summary Judgment” is a non-appealable non-final order, this court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are cons…
-
Myrle F. Belin v. Colin Mitchel, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ition for certiorari is granted. The trial court entered an order granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment; however, that order contained none of the necessary language of finality. See, e.g., Amelco Investment Corp. v. Bryant Electric Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). No final judgment was ever entered. See, e.g., Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); BCH Mechanical Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); and Arcangeli v. Albertso…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Guth v. Nell F. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Szewczyk v. Bayshore Props., 456 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Stein v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am., 481 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- BAY & Gulf Laundry Equip. Co., Inc. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Romans v. Romans, 484 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Samuel Bingham's Sons Mfg. Co. v. Metropolis Publ'g Co., 119 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1935)
- Fla. Home Health Servs., Inc. v. State, 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)