BRUCE C. WRINKLE, APPELLANT,
v.
ARLENE M. COOPER, EDWARD HOLT, PAULA KAYE STEVENS, RONALD P. KNEE, KEYSTONE PROPERTIES, INC., THE BEACHES HAMLET, LTD., SOUTHERN RESOURCES INVESTMENTS, HAYDEN & FACCIOLO, MELVIN KARTZMER, LEONARD DAY, STANLEY MARKS, RICHARD MITZEL, NATHANIEL MOORE, DOROTHY WACHTER, NICHOLAS BUONICONTI, ELINOR GANZ, AUGUST MIALE, PAULA MITZEL, CHARLES PISTOL, RONALD LUYCX, AND JOSEPH LUYCX, APPELLEES
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.
Bruce Wrinkle appealed three orders from a lower court proceeding involving a dispute over limited partnership units. The Florida appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that one order was barred by the law of the case doctrine, another was interlocutory and premature, and a third appeared to involve unresolved claims.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The May 5, 2003 order was barred by law of the case doctrine; the November 3, 2003 order could not be reviewed because unresolved counts remained; and the March 11, 2004 Dissolution Order was not final because the lower court reserved jurisdiction over pending matters.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order that is not final.
[2] An order is not final if it acknowledges pending claims and reserves jurisdiction over unresolved issues.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the doctrine of law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the appellate court and in the lower tribunal in all subsequent stages of the proceedings”
Establishes the law of the case doctrine as a bar to Wrinkle's second appeal of the May 5, 2003 order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWrinkle sought review of three orders: a May 5, 2003 Final Declaratory Judgment, a November 3, 2003 Partial Summary Judgment declaring that Paula K. S…
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 Premature Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Bruce C. Wrinkle, has sought review of three orders: (1) the May 5, 2003, Final Declaratory Judgment, (2) the November 3, 2003, Order Granting Defendant Moore’s (et al.) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and (3) the March 11, 2004, Dissolution Order. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss filed by appellees Nathaniel Moore, Richard Mitzel, Paula Mitzel, Nicholas Buoniconti, and Ron Luycx (“MMMBL”), the reply in support of the motion to dismiss filed by appellee Beaches Hamlet, Ltd., and the response filed by appellant Wrinkle, the Court has determined that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
With regard to the May 5, 2003, Final Declaratory Judgment, this Court dismissed a previous appeal of the same order by Wrinkle for lack of standing. See Wrinkle v. Cooper, 859 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This second appeal is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. See Parker Family Trust I v. City of Jacksonville, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that the doctrine of law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the appellate court and in the lower tribunal in all subsequent stages of the proceedings).
The appellant has also sought review of the November 3, 2003, Partial Summary Judgment, which disposed of Count I of MMMBL’s counterclaim against Wrinkle, Paula K. Stevens, and Edward Holt by declaring that Stevens had no authority to transfer the limited partnership units to Wrinkle, and that MMMBL are the rightful owners of the disputed partnership shares. However, nothing in the records before the Court indicates whether Counts II and III, which alleged claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against Paula Kaye Stevens and for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against appellant Wrinkle, have been resolved.
Finally, contrary to Wrinkle’s assertion, the March 11, 2004, Dissolution Order is not a final order. See, e.g., Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla.2002); McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1992). Specifically, because the order acknowledges pending claims against the Partnership, and reserves jurisdiction over several issues including the distribution of the reserved funds according to the outcome of those claims, the lower tribunal’s judicial labor with regard to the instant cause appears to be incomplete. Thus, the appeal appears to be premature. Thé motion to dismiss filed by appellees Nathaniel Moore, Richard Mitzel, Paula Mitzel, Nicholas Buoniconti, and Ron Luycx, is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)
- Gerrard D. Jones v. State, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Parker Fam. Tr. I v. The City OF Jacksonville & The City Council of the City of Jacksonville, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Wyatt v. Nat'l Bank OF Commerce & Kevin Gay Fam. LLC, 859 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)