RONALD J. PALAMARA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHINNOCK MARINE, INC., 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 denying a motion for relief from judgment 'without prejudice' is not a final, appealable order.
After a default judgment was entered, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied 'without prejudice.' The def…
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, MELANIE G., Associate Judge.
Issues of notice, proper service, and a right to be heard are raised in this appeal. However, it is the lack of finality of the order being appealed that forms the foundation of this opinion.
After entry of a default, the trial court entered a final judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied “without prejudice.” The trial court then denied a motion for rehearing. It is from the order denying the motion for rehearing on the motion for relief from judgment that the defendant now appeals.
Without reaching the merits of the underlying case, this Court is drawn to the language in the trial court’s order, which clearly indicates that the motion for relief from judgment is “denied without prejudice.” Such language is employed by courts to allow a party another opportunity to address the court on the issues(s) presented. “Such an order is not an appeal-able final order since it fail(s) to contain the ‘magic words demonstrating finality.’ ” Bushweiler v. Levine, 476 So. 2d 725, 725-26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We acknowledge that a final judgment has been entered, which might appear to bring the matter to conclusion. However, the fact that the final judgment was entered after a default makes the ruling on the Motion for Relief from Judgment the focus of our review.
Since we find that the trial court has indicated a willingness to consider the motion again, we hereby dismiss this appeal.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quatera Shenequa Gould v. Fairwinds Motel, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…only was that order not designated in the notice of appeal as an order sought to be appealed, but also the order denied the motion for relief without prejudice, making it a nonfinal, non-appealable order. See Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposi…
-
Preudhomme v. Garth Bailey, 186 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…o Amend, Clarify, and/or Enforce Parenting Plan was without prejudice to her filing “separate, legally sufficient motions and/or petitions” and therefore was not a final order nor an appealable non-final order. See Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). For this same reason, we dismiss the wife’s appeal of the order denying without prejudice the Former Wife’s Amended Motion .for Attorneys Fees and Costs. See Scott ex rel. Scott v. Women’s Med. Grp.,…
Authorities Cited
- Bushweiler v. Levine, 476 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)