DAVID J. HIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID J. RYAN, ET AL., 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.
David Higgins appealed a trial court order determining ownership percentages of Irish Times, Inc. among three shareholders. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order was a non-final interlocutory opinion that did not determine immediate possession of property or disburse funds as required by appellate rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).
The order is not appealable. Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) does not apply because the order does not determine any right to immediate possession of property, does not order disbursement of funds, and does not directly affect immediate possession rights, which remain subject to further determination.
[1] An order determining ownership percentages in a corporation is not an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) if it does n…
[2] An order that merely states an opinion on ownership percentages in a corporation, without directing the transfer or possession of property, does not fall within the scope…
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“The instant order does not order disbursement of any funds or determine any right to immediate possession of property. It is simply an interlocutory order in which a trial court has given its opinion of the percentage of ownership held by three persons in Irish Times, Inc.”
Establishes the core distinction between appealable orders (those determining immediate possession or disbursing funds) and non-appealable interlocutory opinions on ownership percentages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court issued an order determining ownership of Irish Times, Inc., vesting 45% to David J. Higgins, 45% to David J. Ryan, and 10% to Tony Warbu…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Ii) cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
The order on appeal, titled “Order Upon the Issue of Ownership of the Irish Times, Inc.,” states:
The Court [fjinds and [ojrders that the ownership of The Irish Times, Inc. is vested in the following person and the percentage as set forth hereinafter:
David J. Higgins 45%
David J. Ryan 45%
Tony Warburton 10%
In response to our sua sponte order to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Appellant, David J. Higgins, asserts that the order is an appealable non-final order reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). We disagree and dismiss the appeal.
*589Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) allows for review of non-final orders that determine “the right to immediate possession of property, including but not limited to orders that grant, modify, dissolve or refuse to grant, modify, or dissolve writs of replevin, garnishment, or attachment[.]” The instant order does not order disbursement of any funds or determine any right to immediate possession of property. It is simply an interlocutory order in which a trial court has given its opinion of the percentage of ownership held by three persons in Irish Times, Inc.
In his response to this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Higgins states, “This ruling is critical as it relates to the amounts to be paid for the purchase of the stock in the company, among other related issues.” The order does no such thing. It does not mention any amount to be paid for the purchase of stock. Cf. Malek v. Bright, 7 So.3d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (clarifying that a “sum of money” is property to which Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) applies); accord Greene v. Borsky, 961 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Corzo v. Pineiro, 990 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (dismissing case where trial court did not “determine” party’s right of possession). Here, the parties’ respective claims to immediate possession remain subject to determination. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Perez, 988 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The rule cited by Appellant “allows appeal[s] only of orders which more directly determine the immediate right to possession than the type of order entered in this case.” See Marina Bay Hotel & Club, Inc. v. McCallum, 733 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloomgarden v. Mandel, 154 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…roperty because it merely denies the Bloomgardens’ motion to cancel Lanza’s charging lien. In that regard, the Order on Appeal adjudicated the validity of a charging lien; it did not adjudicate the immediate possession of anything. Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). (iii) Order on Appeal is Not Subject to Certiorari Review In our sifting for jurisdiction, we finally consider whether the Order on Appeal may be subject to certiorari review; i.e., whether we should treat the Bloomgar-dens’ ap…
-
Alvaro Martinez, Jr., M.D. v. GOLISTING.COM, Inc., 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (permitting appeal from garnishment order and acknowledging conflict)); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), committee notes (2008 amend.) (same). Accordingly, the rule to show cause is dismissed. See Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So. 3d 588, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (alteration in original) (dismissing appeal of a non-final order determining the respective percentages of ownership of three individuals in a corporate entity, but noting that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) allows for review of non…
-
RED Beryl, Inc. v. Sarasota Vault Depository, Inc., 176 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ffect of the order was simply to deny summary disposition of the parties’ respective claims to immediate possession — not to determine those claims. The claims remain subject to determination at trial.” (emphasis omitted)); see also Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2012) (concluding, in a published order, that an interlocutory order in which the trial court simply gave its “opinion” of ownership interests was not appealable under rale 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdict…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Adolfo Perez, 988 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Marina BAY Hotel & Club, Inc. v. Gerry McCALLUM, 733 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Malek v. Bright, 7 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Brown v. Captain James R. Woodard, 961 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Corzo v. Pineiro, 990 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)