INVESTACORP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE M. EVANS AND WILLIAM A. MURPHY, 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.
Investacorp appeals a partial summary judgment awarding conversion damages to Evans and Murphy. The appellate court reverses because the trial court improperly included language permitting execution on a partial judgment while retaining jurisdiction over a related civil theft count.
A trial court improperly allows execution to issue on a partial summary judgment when it has retained jurisdiction over an interrelated claim. The improper execution language must be struck, rendering the partial judgment merely interlocutory rather than final.
[1] A trial court may not permit execution to issue on a partial summary judgment for damages when other interrelated counts remain pending.
[2] A partial summary judgment awarding damages on one count, while reserving jurisdiction on an interrelated count, is an interlocutory order unless it contains language per…
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“This court has held that it is improper for a trial court to let execution issue on a partial summary judgment for damages.”
Establishes the controlling rule that the trial court violated by permitting execution on the partial judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a partial final judgment on August 31, 2010, awarding $17,256.80 in damages to appellees on a conversion count. The judgment 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 Partial Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Investaeorp, Inc. (“Investacorp”), appeals a summary judgment awarding damages to George M. Evans and William A. Murphy on the conversion count of a two-count complaint. The trial court reserved jurisdiction on the remaining civil theft count. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On August 31, 2010, the trial court entered a partial final judgment in favor appellees/plaintiffs on the conversion count, and awarded them $17,256.80 using the words of finality: “for which let execution issue, forthwith.” The trial court, however, retained jurisdiction to award fees and to enter judgment on the interrelated civil theft count, which remains pending.
“This court has held that it is improper for a trial court to let execution issue on a partial summary judgment for damages.” New Saga Corp. v. Strongwill Corp., 565 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Rothermel v. BXL Assocs., 24 So.3d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Molina v. Watkins, 824 So.2d 959, 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Baumann v. Intracoastal Pac. Ltd. P’ship, 619 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Here, although the trial court reserved jurisdiction to consider the interrelated civil theft count, the partial judgment awarding damages on the conversion count improperly contains the language of finality “for which let execution issue, forthwith.” See Rothermel, 24 So.3d at 665; Williamson v. Banta, 22 So.3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Molina, 824 So.2d at 964; see also Millennium Group I, L.L.C. v. Attorneys Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 847 So.2d 1115, 1116-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Cf. Haven Ctr., Inc. v. Meruelo, 22 So.3d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the partial summary judgment before us and remand with directions to the trial court to strike the phrase “for which let execution issue, forthwith.” Absent that language permitting execution, the partial summary judgment is merely an interlocutory order granting summary judgment, see Rothermel, 24 So.3d at 665-66; Molina, 824 So.2d at 964, and we therefore do not reach the merits of any of Investacorp’s arguments raised in this appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…the issues decided to date. It leaves any appellate issues related to the merits to be determined in a later appeal from the final judgment in the case. Molina v. Watkins, 824 So. 2d 959, 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Investacorp, Inc. v. Evans, 88 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Hugh F. Culverhouse, Jr., P.A. v. Barth, 699 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). This approach has much to recommend it. It permits the judgment debtor to appeal the judgment and post a supersede-as bond to protect against execution,…
-
Surijon v. Zarria, 278 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…d with directions to the trial court to enter an interlocutory order against Surijon as to Count II (unjust enrichment), without words of execution, and to retain jurisdiction to consider the pending related claims.2 See Investacorp, Inc. v. Evans, 88 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Molina v. Watkins, 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Culverhouse v. Barth, 699 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); but see East Avenue, LLC v. Insignia Bank, 13…
Authorities Cited
- Hartzog v. NEW York Yankees & TIG Ins., 847 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Baumann v. Intracoastal Pac. Ltd. P'ship, 619 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Molina v. Watkins, 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Williamson v. Bradford C. Banta, 22 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Magnum Constr. Mgmt. Corp. v. Arso Enters., Inc., 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- The Haven Ctr., Inc. v. Homero Meruelo, 22 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- NEW Saga Corp. v. Strongwill Corp., 565 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Syehean Brown v. State, 24 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Rothermel v. BXL Assocs., 24 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)