HENRY FERBER, ET AL., PETITIONERS/CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
VICTOR FRANZESE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS/CROSS-PETITIONERS
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.
This case involves a dispute between former business partners, Ferber and Franzese, who each sued the other over their respective Amoco service stations. The appellate court denied review of non-final orders for accounting, finding them premature before liability is determined.
No, an order for accounting is not immediately reviewable by certiorari or other non-final appellate means when liability has not yet been determined by the lower court.
[1] An order for accounting is generally not reviewable by non-final appeal or certiorari when the underlying liability of the parties has not yet been determined.
[2] Appellate review of an order for accounting is inappropriate when it is issued without a prior determination of the parties' liability.
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“Since the actual liability of the partners has not yet been determined, we conclude that appellate review of these non-final orders by certiorari or otherwise is both unauthorized and inappropriate.”
Establishes the primary reason for denying review of the non-final orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerber and Franzese, former partners, operated an Amoco station together. Ferber later left and opened another station, leading to lawsuits between th…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Ferber and Franzese formed a partnership, later converted into corporate form, for the operation of an Amoco service station in Coconut Grove, Miami. Under disputed circumstances which remain unresolved below, Ferber left the Grove operation and opened another Amoco station in Miami Beach. Each sued the other for interests in the respective businesses. Without determining whether, or to what extent either of the erstwhile partners is entitled to recovery, the trial judge ordered Ferber to render an accounting to Franzese as to the Miami Beach enterprise, and Franzese to account to Ferber concerning the one in the Grove. Ferber petitions for certiorari to review the former accounting; Franzese cross-petitions from the latter. Since the actual liability of the partners has not yet been determined, we conclude that appellate review of these non-final orders by certiorari or otherwise is both unauthorized and inappropriate. E.g., Heritage Paper Co. v. Farah, 440 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (order of accounting without determination of liability unreviewable by non-final appeal or certiorari); Morton v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same).1 Accordingly, the petition and cross-petition are denied without prejudice to review on plenary appeal from any final judgment rendered below.
Certiorari denied.
. We distinguish those cases in which an order for accounting necessarily involves unjustified discovery and is certiorariable on that basis. See Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956); Oil Conservationists, Inc. v. Gilbert, 471 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. v. Carpenter, 401 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In another class of cases, an order of accounting involves a determination of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief and is therefore reviewable by non-final appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(c)(iv).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956)
- E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Heritage Paper Co., Inc. v. Farah, 440 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. v. Jot Thomas Carpenter, 401 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- OIL Conservationists, Inc. v. Judd Gilbert, 471 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Emil Morton v. City OF Miami Beach, 376 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)