TARIK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NNN ACQUISITIONS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Tarik, Inc. appealed a summary judgment order granting NNN Acquisitions, Inc.'s claim for possession of real property. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a summary judgment order does not determine the immediate right to possession of property and is therefore not appealable under Florida Appellate Rule 9.130(a)(3)(c)(ii).
An order granting a motion for summary judgment does not determine the immediate right to possession of property and therefore is not appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(c)(ii). Summary judgment is interlocutory in character and does not automatically result in the entry of final judgment. The trial court's order did not fit within the plain terms of the appellate jurisdiction rule.
[1] An order granting a motion for summary judgment is generally not an appealable order.
[2] In real property cases, a trial court's order on a summary judgment motion does not determine the immediate right to possession, even if it resolves underlying legal issu…
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“An order granting a motion for summary judgment is a non-appealable order.”
Establishes the general rule that summary judgment orders are not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe underlying action arose from a purported sale of real property to both Tarik and NNN. The trial court granted NNN's motion for summary judgment on…
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 Right To Immediate Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause comes before the court on the motion of Appellee NNN Acquisitions, Inc. (“NNN”), seeldng dismissal of the appeal filed by Appellant Tarik, Inc. (“Tar-ik”). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The underlying action arose out of the purported sale of real property to both Tarik and NNN. The trial court granted NNN’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for possession, holding that “there are no genuine issues of material fact in that it is clear that [Tarik] has no legal right to possess the property.” Tar-ik appeals that order, invoking this court’s jurisdiction under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(c)(ii) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (permitting appeals of orders determining the “right to immediate possession of property”). NNN moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the trial court’s order did not determine Tar-ik’s right to “immediate possession.”
An order granting a motion for summary judgment is a non-appealable order. Rust v. Brown, 13 So.3d 1105, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In real property cases, the trial court’s order on a party’s summary judgment motion does not determine the “immediate right to possession” even though it may resolve the underlying legal issues. Marina Bay Hotel & Club, Inc. v. McCallum, 733 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Profile Invs., Inc. v. Delta Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 957 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Summary judgment is “interlocutory in character” and does not automatically result in the entry of final judgment. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 993 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
In this case, the trial court simply granted NNN’s motion for summary judgment but did not enter a judgment or issue a writ of possession. NNN subsequently sought an entry of final judgment, which the court refused to grant pending the resolution of the instant appeal. NNN sought an order of final judgment precisely because the trial court’s order on the motion for summary judgment did not grant NNN the right to possess the property. As a result, the trial court’s order does not fit within the plain terms of Rule g.lSCKaXSXcXii).1 See Miami-Dade County v. Perez, 988 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (noting that Rule 9.130 does not extend to interlocutory orders in cases *914seeking possession of real property). We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.
WARNER, FARMER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perlberg v. Lubercy Asia Holdings, 247 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1984)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Adolfo Perez, 988 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Marina BAY Hotel & Club, Inc. v. Gerry McCALLUM, 733 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Profile Invs., Inc. v. DELTA Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 957 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Kip A. Sterling v. State, 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc., 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Rust v. Cora L. Brown & Fed. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Gino Perez v. State, 13 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)