BRIAN GILLER, ETC.,
v.
IRA D. GILLER, ETC., ET AL.,
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 an appeal from an order compelling an accounting of property management because the order was not final and therefore not appealable. The court emphasized that appeals in probate cases are limited to orders that finally determine a right or obligation.
No, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order compelling the accounting is not a final order that determines a right or obligation, and it contemplates further judicial labor.
[1] Appeals in probate and guardianship cases are limited to orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person.
[2] An order is not appealable if it contemplates further judicial labor concerning calculations or distributions.
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“appeals of orders rendered in probate and guardianship cases shall be limited to orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.”
This quote establishes the jurisdictional limitation for appeals in probate cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian Giller, as trustee, appealed a trial court order that compelled him to prepare an accounting for six properties. These properties were determine…
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.
GORDO, J.
Brian Giller, individually and as successor trustee of the Norman M. Giller Trust, appeals the trial court’s order compelling him to prepare an accounting of his management of six properties that were determined to belong to the Estate of Norman M. Giller following a bench trial. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order and dismiss.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.170(b) provides that “appeals of orders rendered in probate and guardianship cases shall be limited to orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.” “The rule enumerates a nonexclusive list of twenty-three orders that fall under the umbrella of rule 9.170(b)’s finality requirement.” N. Tr. Co. as trustee of Elizabeth W. Walker Tr. v. Abbott, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D87, D88 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 6, 2021). The order on appeal is not among the nonexclusive list of appealable probate orders enumerated in the Rule. Nor does the order finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person. Rather, the language of the order contemplates further judicial labor concerning calculation of monies owed and distribution of the properties. See Maercks v. Maercks, 272 So. 3d 485, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (rejecting application of Rule 1.970(b) and dismissing appeal where the probate court’s “order expressly contemplates additional judicial labor”
and “does not . . . provide finality as to any issue or party in this case”); Klingensmith v. Ferd & Gladys Alpert Jewish Fam., 997 So. 2d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction as the order “does not . . . put an end to all judicial labor”); Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So. 2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal of nonfinal, nonappealable order based on finding that the “[j]udicial labor has not yet come to an end” with regard to the rights and obligations of a party). “If an order on appeal fails to ‘terminate judicial labor or provide finality as to any issue or party in [the] case,’ it is subject to dismissal.” Abbott, 46 Fla. L. Weekly at D88. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Klingensmith v. Ferd AND Gladys Alpert Jewish Family, 997 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Maercks v. Maercks, 272 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)