ARLENE SINGLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
REALTY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., AS ASSIGNEE AND SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ARLENE SINGLETON, AN INDIVIDUAL, SAYAR ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN BLANCHETT, AN INDIVIDUAL 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.
Arlene Singleton appealed a default judgment order that found her liable but reserved the issue of damages for later determination. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that such an order is not final and appealable under Florida law.
The order is not final and therefore not immediately appealable. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 does not permit an appeal of a nonfinal order determining liability when damages remain to be determined, and an order reserving jurisdiction over damages cannot be final as a matter of law.
[1] An order that determines liability but reserves jurisdiction to determine damages is not a final judgment and is therefore not immediately appealable.
[2] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, as amended in 2000, no longer permits an immediate appeal of a nonfinal order that determines the issue of liability in favor o…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In 2000, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 was amended to remove former section 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), which had allowed an appeal of a nonfinal order that determined the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.”
Establishes that the statutory basis for appealing nonfinal liability determinations was eliminated in 2000.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSingleton failed to file a responsive pleading within the required time period. The trial court clerk entered a default against Singleton. The trial c…
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-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Arlene Singleton appeals an order entitled “Judgment by Default” in which the trial court found that Singleton had not filed any responsive pleading within the time required and that the clerk had entered a default. The decretal portion of the order entered a default judgment against Singleton as to liability. The order reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of damages. This court sua sponte issued an order directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response, appellant asserts only that the order appealed determined that appellant is liable to appellees for their damages. Appellant’s response fails to establish a basis for our jurisdiction.
In 2000, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 was amended to remove former section 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), which had allowed an appeal of a nonfinal order that determined the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. See Amendments to Fla. R.App. P., 780 So.2d 834, 838 (Fla.2000). No remaining section of Rule 9.130 would appear to allow for an immediate appeal of the instant order. Further, because the instant order does not bring an end to the litigation below, this order is not final. See Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (reaffirming traditional test of finality that a “final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.”); Hernando County v. Leisure Hills, Inc., 648 So.2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding that issue of damages is so intertwined with substance of a claim as to render an order reserving jurisdiction to determine damages nonfinal).
DISMISSED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett Medeiros v. Firth, 200 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Buchalter, 14 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
Authorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000)
- Hernando Cnty. v. Leisure Hills, Inc., 648 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)