L & F PARTNERS, LTD., GERALD L. COEN, AND DAVID F. SWEENEY, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
MICHAEL J. MICELI, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 court affirmed the final judgment against the defendants on counts I and II and relinquished jurisdiction for thirty days to allow the plaintiff to obtain an appealable final order on counts III and IV.
Defendants appealed a final judgment entered against them for breach of a sale agreement and breach of an option agreement. The plaintiff cross-appeal…
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 Partial Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
L & F Partners, Ltd., Gerald L. Coen, and David F. Sweeney, who were defendants in the trial court, appeal a final judgment entered against them for claims of breach of a sale agreement and for breach of an option agreement, which were counts I and II of the plaintiffs complaint respectively. We affirm.
Michael J. Miceli, the plaintiff in the trial court, cross-appeals the trial court’s order which granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on counts III and IV of the plaintiff’s complaint. This is, of course, not an appealable order. The record on appeal does not reflect that the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on counts III and IV. Therefore, as to the cross appeal, we relinquish jurisdiction for thirty days for the parties to obtain an appealable final order. See Gries Investment Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).* If Miceli does not supplement the record with a summary judgment within thirty days of the date of this opinion, the cross appeal will be dismissed.
We affirm the appeal and temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court on the cross appeal.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and PARKER, JJ., concur. *
We note other district courts have adopted a stricter policy and have dismissed appeals where this oversight occurs. See Arcangeli v. Albertson’s Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (en banc); Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (en banc); Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Better Gov't Ass'n OF Sarasota Cnty., Inc. v. State, 802 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…lity of an order entering judgment in favor of a party and against the party opponent. Moore Int’l Trucks, Inc. v. Foothill Capital Corp., 560 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). As this court has routinely done, see id.; L & F Partners, Ltd. v. Miceli, 555 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and to the extent that it is necessary to do so,1 we relinquish this court’s inchoate jurisdiction for twenty days to allow the appellants to obtain a final summary judgment with sufficient words of finality to confer upon this c…
-
ST. Mary's Traditional Roman Catholic Church, Inc. v. Eight Hundred, Inc., 779 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…rm. PATTERSON, C.J., and PARKER, J., Concur. . Although the order was labeled and appealed as a final judgment, in fact it was a non-final order because it merely granted Flour-noy’s motion for summary judgment. See L & F Partners, Ltd. v. Miceli, 555 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Still, we have jurisdiction to review the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) because it determined the right to immediate possession of property.…
-
L & F P'rs, Ltd. v. Miceli, 561 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…n favor of the defendants as to counts III and IV of Miceli’s complaint and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur. . See L & F Partners, Ltd. v. Miceli, 555 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). . Section 68.065 provides, in relevant part: Actions to collect worthless checks, drafts, or orders of payment; attorney’s fees and collection costs.— (1) In any civil action brought for the purpose of collecting a check, draf…
Authorities Cited
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Johnson v. First City Bank OF Gainesville & J. Emory Cross, 491 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Kramer v. State, 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Arcangeli v. Albertson's, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)