ALBERTO L. SURIJON
v.
ROBERTO BUENO ZARRIA
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 reversed a "Summary Final Judgment" because it was improperly entered as a final judgment when some claims remained pending. The court clarified that the order should have been interlocutory regarding the granted claim and retained jurisdiction for the others.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment when claims remained pending. The order should have been interlocutory as to the granted claim and should have retained jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
[1] A trial court's order granting summary judgment on some counts but denying it on others, while also including language of finality and closing the case, is an improper fi…
[2] A trial court must enter an interlocutory order when granting summary judgment on fewer than all claims, without words of execution, and retain jurisdiction over pending…
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“Although the order under review provides that the trial court denied “without prejudice” the motion for summary judgment as to Counts V and VI, the order inconsistently includes words of finality—“for all of which let execution issue”—and closes the case as to all parties.”
This quote highlights the inconsistency in the trial court's order that led to the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberto Bueno Zarria sued Alberto L. Surijon on five counts. Zarria moved for summary judgment on three counts: unjust enrichment, fraud in the induce…
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 Civil Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDON, J.
Alberto L. Surijon (“Surijon”) appeals from a “Summary Final Judgment.” For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order under review and remand with instructions. Roberto Bueno Zarria (“Zarria”) filed a complaint against Alberto L. Surijon, alleging five counts, and all counts arise from the same set of facts. Zarria filed a motion for summary judgment addressing three of the five counts alleged against Surijon—Count II (unjust enrichment), Count V (fraud in the inducement), and Count VI (civil theft).1 Following a hearing, the trial court entered the order under review, which is titled “Summary Final Judgment.” The order reflects that the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment as to Count II (unjust enrichment) and denied the motion for summary judgment “without prejudice” as to Counts V and VI, finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Further, as to Count II, the trial court ordered that Zarria is to recover $150,000, plus attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest from Surijon, “for all of which let execution issue.” The trial court also ordered Surijon, as the judgment debtor, to fill out the Fact Information Sheet (Form 1.977 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure).
Although the order under review provides that the trial court denied “without prejudice” the motion for summary judgment as to Counts V and VI, the order inconsistently includes words of finality—“for all of which let execution issue”— and closes the case as to all parties. Accordingly, we reverse the purported “Summary Final Judgment” and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an interlocutory order against Surijon as to Count II (unjust enrichment), without words of execution, and to retain jurisdiction to consider the pending related claims.2 See Investacorp, Inc. v. Evans, 88 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Molina v. Watkins, 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Culverhouse v. Barth, 699 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); but see East Avenue, LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Further, we direct the Clerk of the Circuit Court to reopen the lower tribunal case. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vital v. Summertree Vill. at the Cal. Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 343 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Magdadene Dieuvil and Guilfort Dieuvil v. Falcon Trace Homeowners Assoc. Inc., 338 So. 3d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
-
Magdadene Dieuvil v. Falcon Trace Homeowners Assoc. Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- E. Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- E.L. v. State, 699 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Magnum Constr. Mgmt. Corp. v. Arso Enters., Inc., 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Investacorp, Inc. v. Evans, 88 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)