PRATT'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BIRD BOWL INVESTMENTS, A FLORIDA AND GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND AAV CONSTRUCTION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL & DEVELOPERS, CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the construction company, finding no genuine issue of material fact, and dismissed the appeal concerning the lessor as a prohibited piecemeal appeal.
A shopping center lessee sued the lessor and its construction company for financial losses and business interruption due to renovations. The trial cou…
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 Piecemeal Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for a lessor on two of three counts of a complaint and for the lessor’s construction company on all counts. The causes of action are all based on financial losses allegedly suffered by the appellant, a lessee in a shopping center, owing to physical damages to the leased premises, and business interruption suffered in the course of renovations to the premises.
We agree with the trial court that the appellee, AAV Construction Company, one of two contractors on the site, has demonstrated conclusively that the damages suffered by the appellant were not caused by its operations, and that it is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985) (the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact). No competent counter-evidence was presented sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
We dismiss, without prejudice, the appeal from that part of the summary judgment which disposes of two of the three counts against the lessor, Bird Bowl Investments, as it is conceded that those counts are not separate and distinct from the surviving count. Piecemeal appeal is not permitted where surviving claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974); Mang v. Country Comfort Inn, Inc., 559 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (order dismissing only some of the counts against one defendant was not final as to that defendant and reviewing court did not have jurisdiction to consider it).
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citicorp Real Est., Inc. v. Ameripalms 6B GP, Inc., 633 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ed clear, undisputed evidence to support its motion and where CRE failed to present any evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. Slachter v. Abundio Inv. Co., 566 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Pratt’s Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invs., 565 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The law is well established that two or more documents executed by the same parties, at or near the same time, and concerning the same transaction or subject matter are generally construed together as a single contract. Clayton…
-
Nelson v. Caron Balkany, 620 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ting the actual acreage conveyed. A mov-ant for a summary judgment must demonstrate, conclusively, the nonexistence of a genuine issue of any material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Pratt’s Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invs., 565 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA1990). Procedurally, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, which rested on a theory different from that which was pleaded, was held less than twenty-five days after the filing and mailing of the motion, in violation of rules…
-
Prudential-Lmi Commercial Ins. Co. v. Sears, 572 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…stablishing SEARS and/or its employees moved the dryer in question.” The burden is on the party moving for a summary judgment to show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Pratt’s Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invs., 565 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). It was not the burden of the plaintiff here, on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, to prove that the defendant was negligent. Reversed and remanded for further appropriate proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Mohumman Iqbal Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Mang v. Country Comfort INN, Inc., 559 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)