ELDER CARE HEALTH SERVICES, L.L.C., F/K/A G & M INSURANCE CORP., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN LOSASSO, 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 dismissed a cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order awarding attorney's fees was not a final appealable order, as it addressed only one count of a multi-count complaint against the same defendants.
An order awarding attorney's fees in connection with dismissal of only one count of a multi-count complaint is not a final appealable order.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees in connection with dismissal of only one count of a multi-count complaint against the same defendants is not a final appealable order.
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 intelligenceElder Care Health Services appealed a trial court order granting attorney's fees related to dismissal of one count in a multi-count complaint. The tri…
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
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss this cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Elder Care Health Services sought to appeal a “final judgment granting attorney’s fees.” Although having all the words of finality, this order was not in fact a final order, as it awarded fees in connection with the dismissal of only one count of a multi-count complaint, all against the same defendants. See generally S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974) (“Piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”). The trial court later recognized that the “final judgment” should not have been entered and vacated it. In the meantime, however, Elder Care had appealed the award of attorney’s fees, and when the trial court vacated the “final judgment,” Losasso appealed the order vacating the “final judgment,” arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the order while the case was on appeal.1 While that would be correct if the “final judgment” were an appealable final order, because it was not, the court did not lose jurisdiction to vacate the order. Because neither of the orders were appealable, we have no jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
WARNER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Appellant dismissed its appeal after the court vacated the order awarding attorney’s fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lombardo v. Haige, 971 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…l judgment on the merits. We express no opinion on the merits of that appeal, but the oddity of this procedural posture is hard to overlook. In effect, this judgment is another partial final judgment. See Elder Care Health Servs., L.L.C. v. Losasso, 810 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (dismissing appeal of similar final judgment awarding fees that trial court had already vacated). We note that the First District has held that an order granting partial summary judgment, which entered a judgment for $181,434.63…
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)