GULF POWER COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR PROFIT, REGISTERED IN FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EVA M. HARPER, A SINGLE WOMAN, GEORGE D. HOLLAND, III, A MARRIED MAN, DEBRA HOLLAND BYRD, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, TERRY L. RACKLEY, A MARRIED MAN, AND SHERRYL J. RACKLEY, A MARRIED WOMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 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.
Gulf Power Company appealed a summary judgment order declaring that Gulf Power exceeded the scope of its easement rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim was not final and appealable because other related claims remained pending.
The summary judgment order is non-final and non-appealable because all claims arise from the same factual setting and parties and are interdependent and interrelated. Although declaratory judgments may be appealable when unaccompanied by other claims, they lose that status when other claims remain outstanding.
[1] An order granting summary judgment on a declaratory judgment claim is not appealable when other interdependent and interrelated claims remain pending.
[2] A declaratory judgment claim, even if resolved by summary judgment, does not render a non-final order appealable if other claims in the same action are still pending.
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“Because all of the claims involve the same factual setting and the same parties, and are interdependent and interrelated, the challenged order is non-final and non-appealable as explained in Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association”
Establishes the core holding that interdependent claims prevent a partial judgment from being final and appealable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf Power Company held easements that it was allegedly using in a manner exceeding the scope of those rights. Homeowners Harper, Holland, Byrd, and R…
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 Easement Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
In this case Gulf Power Company is appealing an order by which the circuit court determined that Gulf Power was using certain easements in a manner which exceeds the scope of Gulf Power’s easement rights.
Pursuant to that ruling, the court entered a summary judgment in favor of the appellees on their request for a declaratory judgment. That claim was presented in one count of a seven-count complaint. While the dispute in the summary judgment was treated as a threshold issue it did not resolve all of the other issues, and numerous claims remain pending below. Because all of the claims involve the same factual setting and the same parties, and are interdependent and interrelated, the challenged order is non-final and non-appealable as explained in Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974). See also Kirkland v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 489 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The summary judgment was entered on the appellees’ claim for a declaratory judgment with regard to a dispute over easement rights. In their complaint the appellees also sought supplemental relief upon particular claims in connection with the easement dispute, presenting various theories with requests for damages and injunctive relief. In addition, the appellees indicated in the complaint that they desired class certification, so that the matter could be pursued as a class action. Although the other claims and issues apart from the summary judgment remain outstanding, Gulf Power asserts that an appeal may be obtained upon the summary judgment because it involves a declaratory judgment claim and such judgments are themselves accorded the force and effect of a final judgment. See § 86.011.
However, while a declaratory judgment may be appealable when it is unaccompanied by other claims, that does not avoid the non-appealable nature of the order in the present case, under the dictates of Mendez. And Gulf Power’s suggestion that an appeal should be afforded as an evolution of declaratory judgment law is likewise unavailing, as this court is not at liberty to assume jurisdiction which has not been properly conferred.
Furthermore, Gulf Power’s reliance on Canal Insurance Co. v. Reed, 666 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1996), is unwarranted as that case addressed a situation involving an insurance coverage dispute between an insured and the insurer, in a proceeding where the insured was being sued by an injured party. Canal Insur- anee led to the adoption of what is now Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(m), which permits an appeal in such circumstances. But Canal Insurance and rule 9.110(m) do not provide a separate right to appeal outside of those limited circumstances. See Mercury Insurance Co. of Florida v. Markham, 938 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
In accordance with Mendez the challenged order in this case is non-final and non-appealable, and this appeal is therefore dismissed.
DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stathopoulos, 113 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…piecemeal review. See Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla.1974). That the appellees might have been able to assert the declaratory cause of action in a separate lawsuit does not alter our conclusion. See Gulf Power Co. v. Harper, 940 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (ruling, in an appeal of a partial summary judgment resolving the declaratory count of a multicount com [*960] plaint, that “while a declaratory judgment may be appealable when it is unaccompanied by other claims, that does…
-
Certain Interested Underwriters AT Lloyd's v. Chabad Lubavitch OF Greater FT. Lauderdale, Inc., 65 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…l issue. Reversed and Remanded. GROSS, C.J., concurs. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion. . Chabad argues that Lloyd's appeal is untimely. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); see also Gulf Power Co. v. Harper, 940 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).…
-
Interstate Fibernet, Inc. v. Harper, 940 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. In this case Interstate Fibernet, Inc., appeals from the same summary judgment order involved in Gulf Power Co. v. Harper, No. 1D05-6202, 940 So. 2d 535, 2006 WL 3024956 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.26, 2006). [*542] Interstate Fibernet was a defendant in the lower court along with Gulf Power Company, and with the appellees’ complaint presenting the same claims against both defendants. As explained in this cou…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Reed, 666 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1996)
- Kirkland v. State, 489 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Markham, 938 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)