CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, ETC.,
v.
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, ETC.,
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 appellate court dismissed the City of Miami Beach's appeal of a partial summary judgment order in favor of Florida Gas Transmission Company. The court found the order was not a final, appealable order and did not qualify as an injunction or grant immediate possession of property.
No, the order is not immediately appealable. It does not grant immediate possession of property, nor does it function as an injunction because it does not mandate or prohibit specific actions by the City and leaves further determinations for a later date.
[1] An order granting a motion for partial summary judgment, which declares the existence of an easement but does not grant immediate possession of property or function as an…
[2] An order confirming the existence of an easement, allowing for the maintenance of an existing pipeline, does not constitute a grant of immediate possession of property.
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“At the outset, we note that the order does not constitute an appealable final order.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal: the order was not a final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami Beach appealed a trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, which declared Flor…
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 Easement Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Miami Beach appeals an order granting Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that Florida Gas had rights in a disputed easement. Because the order is a non-final, non-appealable order, we dismiss the City’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. “At the outset, we note that the order does not constitute an appealable final order.” Mid–Continent Cas. Co. v. Flora–Tech Plantscapes, Inc., 225 So. 3d 336, 337–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing Ball v. Genesis Outsourcing Sols., LLC, 174 So. 3d 498, 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A., v. Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)).
The City agrees but argues that the order is appealable either as one granting immediate possession of property or because it is, in effect, an injunction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B), (a)(3)(C)(ii).
We find the order under review does not grant immediate possession of property. It confirms the existence of an easement, allowing Florida Gas to maintain its pipeline—a pipeline that has been in place since 1959. In fact, no one disputes Appellee’s right to have its gas pipes in the right of way, but only whether that right is pursuant to easement, permit, franchise, or some combination thereof.
Moreover, the trial court’s order does not function as an injunction because it does not specifically mandate or prohibit any City action. Cf. Mid–Continent Cas., 225 So. 3d at 339–40 (holding that an order declaring that the insurer had a contractual duty to defend did not operate as an injunction conferring jurisdiction under Rule
9.130(a)(3)(B) because the court did not compel the insurer to defend). The order does not define the parameters of the easement that it purports to recognize, and, indeed reserves that determination for a later proceeding. Accordingly, we find the order does not rise to the level either of a grant of immediate possession of property or of an injunction prohibiting the City from undertaking construction in its rights-of-way. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Flora-Tech Plantscapes, Inc., 225 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)