A & M PAINTING, APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON S. JENNINGS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from a three count complaint filed by appellee Jennings against appellant A & M Painting, Inc. Count I of the complaint was drafted together with a summons to show cause why a lien filed by A & M against Jennings should not be discharged. See § 713.21(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). A & M Painting, Inc. appeals two non-final orders, one denying its motion to quash process, and the second from an order granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash. We find also that the second order at issue here is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In so doing, we conclude that A & M failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. Accordingly, the petition for common law certiorari is denied.
NON-FINAL APPEAL AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.
LETTS, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lifred v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…s and the three year mandatory mind-mum on Count II for aggravated battery with a firearm of Henry. In defendant’s first appeal, the propriety of imposing consecutive mandatory minimums was briefed, argued and implicitly rejected. Lifhred v. State, 598 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).1 Defendant Lifred (also spelled Lifhred) asks us to revisit this issue because one of his codefendants, Levi Rahming, successfully argued on his second sentencing appeal that the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums, pur…
-
Dracon Constr., Inc. v. Facility Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 828 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…n Co., 482 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1986). The trial court entered an order vacating Dracon’s liens. A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to seek review of an order granting a motion to vacate a lien. See A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In a section 713.21(4) proceeding, after an “interested party” files a complaint for discharge, the clerk “shall issue a summons to the lienor to show cause within 20 days why his or her lien should not be enforced by action or…
-
Ebano-Soberon, Inc. v. The Cury Grp., Inc., 40 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…tion for partial summary judgment, effectively vacating a lien for failure to furnish a final payment affidavit, as required by section 713.06(3)(d), Fla. Stat. We find the order to be reviewable by certiorari. See, e.g., A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Our review of this matter reveals that there remain material issues of fact as to whether ES was a laborer, material supplier, contractor or subcontractor, such that whether ES is obligated to furnish a final payment affidavit…
Authorities Cited
- Cooper Vill., Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)