MICHAEL C. MORGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LUGENE BLANCHER, 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.
Morgan appealed from dismissal of his count alleging securities fraud against Blancher, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the related counts (breach of fiduciary duty and negligence) remained pending as nonfinal orders, making the dismissal of count one non-final.
The dismissal of count one is not a final, appealable order because counts two and three remain pending as nonfinal orders. An order dismissing claims with leave to amend is nonfinal, and when related counts remain pending, the dismissal of other interrelated counts cannot be final.
[1] An order dismissing a count with prejudice is not a final order if other counts remain pending.
[2] An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not a final, appealable order.
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“All three counts were legally interrelated and grounded upon the same transaction.”
Establishes the standard that interrelated counts arising from same transaction must be treated as interdependent for finality purposes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorgan sued Dandi Merchandise, Inc. on a promissory note bearing 25% annual interest. Dandi counterclaimed for usury. Morgan filed a third-party actio…
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 Securities And Investor Protection Act cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant sued Dandi Merchandise, Inc. (Dandi) on a promissory note bearing an annual interest rate of 25%. Dandi defended and counterclaimed on the theory of usury. Appellant filed a third-party action alleging that Blancher, as a licensed securities agent, improperly induced him to “invest” money in Dandi for interest higher than the legal rate. The amended third-party complaint also alleged that Blancher failed to inform appellant of Dandi’s precarious financial condition and that Blanch-er was a director of Dandi and had a financial interest in that corporation. On the premise that the promissory note constituted a “security,” count one sought rescission for failure to comply with the Florida Securities Act. Counts two and three prayed for damages on theories of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Upon Blancher’s motion, the court dismissed count one with prejudice and dismissed counts two and three with leave to amend.
Appellant seeks to appeal from the dismissal of count one. All three counts were legally interrelated and grounded upon the same transaction. See Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974).
Therefore, the dismissal of count one with prejudice cannot be a final order if counts two and three remain pending. Moudy v. Southland Distributing Co., 452 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not appealable because it is a nonfinal order. Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). If the order dismissing counts two and three with leave to amend is a nonfinal order, these counts necessarily remain pending. Although the court in Blacker v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (Fla.1979), appears to have entertained an appeal under similar circumstances, there is no indication that the appealability of the order in question was ever considered.
We hereby dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Needless to say, the dismissal is without prejudice to later raising the same issue upon a proper appeal.
DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klein v. Pinellas Cnty., 685 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…nse to the trial court’s dismissal of count II. Although a final order of dismissal was not entered, a timely notice of appeal followed. An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not appealable because it is a nonfinal order. Morgan v. Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). There must be a separate final order entered which disposes of the case and which is properly rendered as defined by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In the instan…
-
Walters v. Ocean Gate Phase I Condo., 925 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…these obligations upon the owners and the association. This court earlier dismissed the appeal regarding Counts I, II, and IV because the circuit court’s order, entered without prejudice, was a non-appealable nonfinal order. See Morgan v. Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The appeal concerning Count III for specific performance remained. We dismiss the remaining appeal as to [*442] James Robinson and John Nelson, because Walters still has an unresolved claim against them. See Dalola v. Barbe…
-
Milford Levine v. Forrest, 578 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…smissed count one (the breach of contract count) with leave to amend as to defendant United. The order is therefore a non-final, nonappealable order with respect to that defendant. See Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966); Morgan v. Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Braddon v. Doran Jason Co., 453 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Plaintiff next contends that the order dismissing count one with prejudice as to defendants Austin and For…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Boyce R. "Bill" Moudy v. Southland Distrib. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc., 452 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Ivar Blacker v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)