GARRETT MEDEIROS, APPELLANT,
v.
LLOYD FIRTH A/K/A WILLIAM LLOYD FIRTH, 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.
Garrett Medeiros appealed a trial court's order vacating a default judgment against defendant Lloyd Firth. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that orders vacating defaults and default judgments are non-final, non-appealable orders not enumerated in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the trial court's order vacating the default and default final judgment as to liability because such orders are non-final, non-appealable orders not enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).
[1] An order vacating a default and/or vacating a default judgment as to liability is not an appealable final order.
[2] A default judgment entered against a defendant as to liability is not a final judgment, but rather a non-final, non-appealable order.
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“A default judgment entered against a defendant as to liability is not a final judgment; rather, it is a non-final, non-appealable order.”
Establishes the core holding that default judgments as to liability cannot be appealed because they are non-final orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2013, Medeiros filed a multi-count complaint against Firth and another defendant. After Firth failed to respond, the clerk entered a default in…
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 Final Judgment Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
Garrett Medeiros appeals the trial court’s order vacating the default and the “default final judgment as to liability” entered against Lloyd Firth, a defendant below. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In May 2013, Medeiros filed a multi-count complaint for damages against Firth and Lara Duncan.1 On October 22, 2013, the clerk entered a default against Firth pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(a) for his failure to file or serve any paper in the action. Medeiros also obtained a “default final judgment as to liability” against Firth.
Although Medeiros was seeking unliqui-dated damages, he subsequently obtained, without notice, an amended default final judgment against Firth in the amount of $25,925.50. The entry of the amended default final judgment was improper because in actions in which the damages are unliq-uidated, a defaulted party is entitled to receive a notice of trial. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c); see also Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[A] party has a due process entitlement to notice and an opportunity to be heard on unliquidated damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440.”).
Thereafter, Firth filed a verified motion for relief from final judgment. Medeiros acknowledged that Firth was entitled to have the amended default final judgment set aside and filed a “Motion to Voluntarily Vacate the Amended Default Final Judgment Against Defendant Lloyd Firth.” On July 14, 2015, the trial court entered an agreed order vacating the amended default final judgment. The trial court reserved ruling on the remaining issues raised in Firth’s verified motion for relief. On August 13, 2015, after an unrecorded hearing, *122the trial court entered an order setting aside the default and the “default final judgment as to liability.”2
On appeal, Medeiros challenges the trial court’s order vacating the default and the “default final judgment as to liability.” An appellate court has an independent duty to determine whether it has appellate jurisdiction and is not bound by the trial court’s caption or the parties’ characterization of an order. Almacenes El Globo De Quito, S.A. v. Dalbeta L.C., 181 So.3d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Florida law makes no provision for a “final judgment as to liability.” A final judgment has traditionally been defined as one that “ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.” Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002). A default judgment entered against a defendant as to liability is not a final judgment; rather, it is a non-final, non-appealable order. Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So.3d 794, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Appeals of non-final orders to the district courts of appeal are limited to those enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Because the rule does not authorize an appeal from an order vacating a default and/or vacating a default judgment as to liability, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Rodriguez v. Young Am. Corp., 717 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Yates v. Roller Skating Rinks Inc., 379 So.2d 1333, 1334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shassian v. Riverwalk Park, LLC, 365 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…fect those matters. Appellees did not respond to the Fifth District’s order to show cause, and they do not contest our jurisdiction in their answer brief. We have an independent duty, however, to determine our jurisdiction. See Medeiros v. Firth, 200 So. 3d 121, 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Almacenes El Globo De Quito, S.A. v. Dalbeta L.C., 181 So. 3d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)). We are unbound by the parties’ characterization of a lower court’s order. See id. Parties also cannot stipulate to our ju…
-
DRJ Atl., LLC v. Babadi, 392 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
-
Advanced Biomedical, Inc. v. 1551 Props., LLC, 374 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…9.130(a)(5). Accordingly, we dismiss 1 An appellate court has the independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal. Shassian v. Riverwalk Park, LLC, 365 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (citing Medeiros v. Firth, 200 So. 3d 121, 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)). this appeal because our jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal was not timely invoked. See Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction “[b]ecause…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Yates v. Roller Skating Rinks Inc., 379 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Almacenes EL Globo de Quito v. Dalbeta L.C., 181 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Garamone v. A.M. Chudnow, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez v. Young Am. Corp., 717 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- F.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 5 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)