MORTON & OXLEY, LTD., AND GREG MAYER, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES S. EBY, M.D., P.A., DERMATOLOGIC AND COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER, LC, A FLORIDA LIMITED CORPORATION, CHARLES S. EBY, M.D., AS AN INDIVIDUAL, JEAN B. EBY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, 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.
Morton & Oxley, Ltd. and Greg Mayer appealed three nonfinal orders in a trust asset misappropriation case. The appellate court affirmed one order regarding money held in the court registry, dismissed the appeal of an order denying rehearing of a temporary injunction, and dismissed the appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to name indispensable parties and lack of standing.
The court affirmed the order regarding immediate possession of property held in the court registry. It dismissed the appeal of the order denying rehearing as a nonappealable nonfinal order. It also dismissed the appeal of the order denying the motion to dismiss because denials of motions to dismiss for indispensable party and standing defects are not appealable nonfinal orders and certiorari review was not warranted.
[1] An order determining the right to the immediate possession of property is reviewable as a nonfinal order.
[2] An order denying a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order is generally a nonappealable order.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“an order denying a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order is a nonappealable order”
Establishes the court's holding that the second order cannot be appealed because it denied a rehearing motion rather than the underlying motion itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves alleged misappropriation of trust assets. The trial court had previously entered a temporary injunction order on April 22, 2003. Mo…
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 Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, Morton & Oxley, Ltd., and Greg Mayer, an officer of Morton & Oxley, Ltd. (collectively the Trustee), challenge three nonfinal orders in this action dealing with the alleged misappropriation of trust assets. We have jurisdiction to review the “Order on Jean Eby and Charles Ebys’ Motion to Release Money Held in Court Registry to Pay Taxes” as an order determining the right to the immediate possession of property, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), and we affirm that order without comment.
The Trustee also seeks review of the “Order on Defendants’ Motion to Order Removal of Funds in Clerk’s Custody and Return and Post Same to Trust Accounts.” The trial court characterized the motion as a motion for rehearing of the court’s earlier order granting a temporary injunction1 and denied the motion.
We agree with the trial court’s characterization and further note that an order denying a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order is a nonappealable order. See Solman-Staropoli v. Califano, 645 So. 2d 84, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (concluding that the denial of a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for improper venue is not appealable under rule 9.130(a)); see also Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stating that an order denying reconsideration of an order denying a motion to set aside a clerk’s default is not appealable).
Thus, we dismiss the appeal as to the order denying, what is in effect, the Trustee’s motion for rehearing.
Finally, the Trustee challenges the “Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint For Failure to Name Indispensable Parties and Because Plaintiffs Have No Standing.” The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. The denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is a nonfinal order, and the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to name indispensable parties or for lack of standing is not listed as an appealable nonfinal order in rule 9.130(a). See Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (recognizing that an order denying a motion to dismiss based on a lack of standing is not an appealable nonfinal order).
Certiorari review may be available in limited circumstances with regard to nonfinal orders, Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla.2004), including to review orders on motions to dismiss for failure to join indis pensable parties. See, e.g., Fresh Del Monte Produce, N.V. v. Chiquita Int’l Ltd., 664 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Mantis v. Hinckley, 547 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
However, to obtain relief from an interlocutory order a party must establish “ ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Reeves, 889 So. 2d at 822 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)).
The record before us does not demonstrate a basis that would justify the invocation of our certiorari jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with respect to the order denying the Trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
STRINGER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . The Trustee did not appeal the original temporary injunction order that was entered on April 22, 2003. Furthermore, a motion for rehearing of a nonfinal order is unauthorized and does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Am-west Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Forrest, 682 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blades v. State, 943 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…unsel. . The Department argues that the order under review is a non-final, non-appealable order as the father’s motion to vacate was premised on the Department's and mother's lack of standing. See Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(holding that "denial of a motion to dismiss ... for lack of standing is not listed as an appealable nonfinal order in rule 9.130(a)”); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)(recognizing that an order denying a mot…
-
Hinckley v. Dep't OF Revenue, 927 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…3, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). It also appears that any error in the circuit court’s order can be corrected by postjudgment appeal. Thus, review is not available under our certiorari jurisdiction. See Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So. 2d 820, 821-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 648-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). As noted in Traveler v. Steiner Transocean [*76] Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), a postjudgment appeal “is an ade…
-
Ryland v. Beachside Physical Therapy, Inc., 302 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Bd. OF Regents OF the State of Fla. v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Forrest, 682 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Giokas v. State, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Mantis v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., 547 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Scottie L. Taylor v. State, 664 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Solman-Staropoli v. Califano, 645 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Peterson v. State, 645 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)