ROBERT H. WELCH, APPELLANT,
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that an order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice is not an appealable final or non-final order.
Resolution Trust Corp. filed a foreclosure action against Spanish Oaks and others. Welch filed a counterclaim, on which the trial court entered summar…
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
HARRIS, Judge.
This action was originally filed by Resolution Trust Corp. (now AmeriFirst) against Spanish Oaks, Welch, Spanish Oaks Properties, Inc., and the Kite-Powells to foreclose a first mortgage. Welch filed a five-count counterclaim. The trial court entered summary final judgment on Counts I and III of the counterclaim and dismissed Counts II, IV and V with leave to amend.
Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, authorizes review of final orders of lower tribunals. The traditional test for a final order is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for the execution or enforcement of the decree if necessary. Blount v. Hansen, 116 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Rule 9.130 governs review of interlocutory orders: (1) orders concerning venue, (2) orders granting, continuing, modifying, denying or dissolving injunctions, or (3) orders determining jurisdiction of the person, right to immediate possession of property, right to immediate monetary relief or child custody, liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief, or whether a party is entitled to arbitration.
An order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice is not an appeal-able final or non-final order. EIR, Inc. v. Electronic Molding Corp., 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also Scott v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, 537 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). A final summary judgment entered on one count of a multi-count complaint is not appealable where interrelated counts remain. Boca Grande Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Boca Development Associates, Inc., 570 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also North Indiatlantic Homeowners Assoc. v. Bogue, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (piecemeal appeals are not permitted where the claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties).
DISMISS.
GOSHORN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…1983). The traditional test for finality is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for execution and enforcement of the decree if necessary. Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Particular words and phrases are not essential to finality of an order. GEICO Fin. Servs. v. Kramer, 575 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(although typical for a final order, the phrase “for which let execution issue” is not essen…
-
Liberty Commc'ns, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 733 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…order the court granted MCI’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case. In an unpublished order, this court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the order granting the motion to dismiss, see Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), or the order vacating the default, see Collins v. Penske Truck Leasing, 668 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). This court further ruled that it had jurisdiction to review the portion of the order granting the motion to compel arbit…
-
Hernando Cnty. v. Leisure Hills, Inc., 648 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…at Leisure Hills is entitled to have its plat recorded but did not order the plat recorded. That does not, however, dispose of a separate and distinct cause of action unrelated to the remaining claim for damages. See Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (an order granting final summary judgment as to one count of a multi-count complaint is not a final appealable order where a remaining count is interrelated with the count adjudicated). Contrary to Hernando County’s assert…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blount v. Hansen, 116 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Codomo, 390 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- EIR, Inc. v. Elec. Molding Corp., 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Augustine Joseph v. State, 540 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Moment v. State, 537 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Scott v. Waste Mgmt., 537 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Boca Grande Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Boca Dev. Assocs., Inc., 570 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)