DCA OF HIALEAH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LENNAR CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAGO GRANDE ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Lennar appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a condominium association's complaint for failure to timely serve process within 120 days. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that orders denying motions to dismiss based on untimely service are not reviewable interlocutory appeals.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion to dismiss. Orders denying motions to dismiss for untimely service are not reviewable as non-final orders under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because the issue involves timeliness of service, not validity of service or jurisdiction over the person.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to serve initial process and pleading within the time required by rule 1.070(j), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is not…
[2] Appellate jurisdiction to review non-final orders under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, is limited to orders that determine jurisdiction of…
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“This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal.”
Establishes the threshold holding that the appellate court cannot review the order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 29, 1988, the Lago Grande Homeowners Association sued Lennar for construction deficiencies. On March 24, 1989, condominium associations file…
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 Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, DCA of Hialeah, Inc. and Lennar Corporation, [collectively, Lennar] appeal a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them by Appellees, the Lago Grande condominium associations [condominium associations]. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 29, 1988, the Lago Grande Homeowners Association brought an action against Lennar alleging deficiencies in the designs and construction of the Lago Grande residential development. Subsequently, on March 24, 1989, condominium associations brought a similar suit against Lennar in response to Lennar’s argument that they, and not the homeowners association, were the proper parties to prosecute the action. Thereafter, Lennar moved the trial court to dismiss condominium associations’ complaint for failure to serve the initial process and pleading within the 120 days required by rule 1.070(j), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1989). Condominium associations defended by asserting that they had not served the complaint pursuant to Rule 1.070(j) because they were waiting for a resolution of the standing issue in the first litigation. The trial court denied Lennar’s motion to dismiss and Lennar then filed this interlocutory appeal. Condominium associations moved for the dismissal of this appeal and the motion was denied without prejudice.
This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal. This court held in Cole v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla.3d DCA 1989), that an order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to serve the initial process and pleading in accordance with Rule 1.070(J) is not reviewable as a non-final order pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (1989). Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) permits district courts of appeal to review non-final orders of the lower tribunals which “determine jurisdiction of the person”. In the instant case, as in Cole v. Posada, the issue before the trial court was the timeliness of the service of the initial process and pleading and not whether the service of process was itself valid. Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed.
Dismissed.