BCH MECHANICAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN A. MCCOY, ETC., APPELLEE
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.
BCH Mechanical's appeal of a summary judgment order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment was non-final and non-appealable.
An order granting a motion for summary judgment that does not constitute a final summary judgment is a non-final, non-appealable order over which an appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
[1] An order granting a motion for summary judgment that reserves determination of costs and fees for a later hearing is a non-final order not subject to appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBCH Mechanical appealed a trial court order granting John A. McCoy's motion for summary judgment on BCH's cross-claim against McCoy. The order stated …
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, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
BCH Mechanical, Inc. appeals the order entered by the trial court which grants John A. McCoy’s motion for summary judgment on BCH’s cross-claim against McCoy. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review this case, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.
The trial court’s order grants McCoy’s motion for summary judgment and specifically provides that “the court shall enter a summary final judgment based upon this order upon motion duly made and after a hearing to determine the costs and fees to which McCoy is entitled.” This order is clearly an order granting a motion for summary judgment, not a final summary judgment, and, therefore, the order is a non-final, non-appealable order. Nolan’s Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this case. See Dykstra-Gulick v. Gulick, 519 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Allen v. Florida Department of Military Affairs, 576 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Becton v. K & L Contractors, Inc., 573 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Wetterauer v. Frontenac Flea Market, Inc., 573 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); McPheeters v. Tolbert, 561 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). But see Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, 581 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
DISMISSED.
COBB, W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…” Moreover, it expressly reserves jurisdiction to consider and decide “any and all other matters applicable to this case.” As far as we can determine from the record, no final judgment has ever been entered. See, e.g., BCH Mechanical, Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (an order which merely grants a motion for summary judgment is not a final order). Accord Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fl…
-
Myrle F. Belin v. Colin Mitchel, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…Amelco Investment Corp. v. Bryant Electric Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). No final judgment was ever entered. See, e.g., Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); BCH Mechanical Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); and Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), cited in Dixon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The doctrine of laches, on which the trial court relied alternatively, does not…
-
Pius Affolter v. Va. Key Marina, 601 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…9.130(a)(4), but no jurisdiction to review the order granting a motion for directed verdict, as it is not a final order nor an appealable non-final order, see Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a); see BCH Mechanical, Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Nolan’s Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from the order gr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Nolan's Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Richardson v. State, 561 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- LTC William L. Allen (RET) v. Fla. Dep't of Mil. Affairs, 576 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Becton v. K & L Contractors, Inc., 573 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Wetterauer v. Frontenac Flea Mkt., Inc., 573 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)