JASMINE SCOTT, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, DARYL SCOTT AND TEMPLE SCOTT, AND DARYL SCOTT AND TEMPLE SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
WOMEN'S MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOAN M. MACKSEY, M.D., 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 attorney's fees without prejudice is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order, thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
Appellants sought attorney's fees, and the trial court denied their motion without prejudice, allowing them to revisit the issue later. Appellants app…
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 Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated December 3, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, dated October 10, 2002, is neither a final order nor a nonfinal order appealable pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.130(a)(4) (2002).
Final attorney’s fees orders are appealable as separate final judgments. See Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); BDO Seidman, L.L.P. v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1019, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, the order being appealed is not a final attorney’s fee order, because it denies the appellants’ motion without prejudice to revisit the issue in the same suit when the Supreme Court resolves the conflict. See Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Additionally, an order that purports to become final at a later date is not final. See, e.g. United Water Florida, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 728 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The instant order is not an appealable nonfinal order under rule 9.130(a)(4), because it contemplates a future final order, either granting or denying the appellants’ motion with finality, at which point the appellants will have the right to appeal that final order. See Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc., 691 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Century Construction Corp., 656 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
DISMISSED.
BARFIELD, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo Assoc., 250 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Guardian AD Litem Program v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 972 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…is case is not directed to any prior final order. Rather, it contemplates a future final order, one which will ultimately either grant or deny the foster parents’ petition for adoption. See generally Scott ex. rel. Scott v. Women’s Med. Group, P.A., 837 So. 2d 577, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This is not the type of “egregious” dependency determination contemplated in Honeycutt which may be reviewed by common law certiorari. 609 So. 2d at 597. The appeal is dismissed. STONE and POLEN, JJ„ concur.…
-
Newman v. Newman, 858 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…tion could be extinguished by the parties’ failure to present documentary evidence, and therefore nothing remained for the court to determine, the instant order would not subsequently become final. See Scott ex rel. Scott v. Women’s Med. Group, P.A, 837 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). See also Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the order, which stated that the court would dismiss the action if the amended complaint were not filed within the time allowed, was not a final order);…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Delouis Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Alfonson Detroy Ponton and Reginald J. Williams v. Officer B.E. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Md. Cas. Co. & N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- United Water Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 728 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Degregorio v. State, 750 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. British CAR Auctions, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc., 691 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)