ROBERT L. BORLAND, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHRYN L. BORLAND, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH PATRICK UTILITY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; ROBERT L. BORLAND, APPELLANT, V. SOUTH PATRICK UTILITY CORP., A FLORIDA 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal addressed whether a single notice of appeal can be used to review two separate judgments rendered in distinct tort suits that were consolidated for trial purposes only. The court held that separate notices of appeal are required when cases are consolidated merely for trial convenience rather than being fully merged.
A single notice of appeal is insufficient to review two judgments where the underlying cases were consolidated merely for convenience at trial and remained separate and distinct in all other respects. Separate notices of appeal are required in such circumstances.
“where two causes are consolidated only for convenience at trial, one notice of appeal is insufficient to review two judgments”
States the court's holding regarding the procedural requirement for separate notices of appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Borland brought two separate tort suits arising from the same accident—one individually and one as administrator of his minor daughter's estate…
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.
The appellee has filed two motions to dismiss in this case, but for the purpose of this opinion it will only be necessary to discuss the first; namely, whether the two judgments rendered below may be brought before this court by a single notice of appeal.
This case involves one suit brought by the appellant individually and another suit brought by him as administrator of the estate of Kathryn L. Borland, a minor. The two suits growing out of the same accident were consolidated for the purpose of jury trial only. Other than this, the cases were separate and distinct in all stages of the proceedings below. Verdicts and judgments were rendered in the two cases for the appellee. The appellant then filed a single notice of appeal to review both cases.
In the case of North American Co. v. Landahl, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 749, decided by this court, we -held that in an appeal from judgments in a tort action instituted by a husband and wife in conformity with § 46.09 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., only one notice of appeal was necessary. In that case, however, there was only one complaint involved. Although there were two verdicts we held that the separate verdicts and judgments in that case were, in effect, simply allocations of the damages to the husband and wife. In the present case there were two complaints filed, and they were, for the convenience of the lower court and the parties, consolidated for trial. There were two verdicts and two judgments.
From a reviejv of the pertinent cases and authorities, we conclude that - where two causes are consolidated only for convenience at trial, one notice of appeal is-*45insufficient to review two judgments. In 4A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 593(5), this rule is stated as follows:
“ * * * [A]nd but one notice is necessary where several suits have been consolidated, although several judgments were entered under separate titles, unless the consolidation was merely for the purpose of trial and the actions remain separate and distinct.” (Emphasis added.)
The general rule is stated in Orange Belt Packing Co. v. International Agricultural Corp., 1933, 112 Fla. 99, 150 So. 264. See also the annotation in 36 A.L.R.2d 823, and cases cited therein.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and LOVE, WILLIAM K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milar Galleries, Inc. v. Miller, 349 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1977)…nt to the entry of petitioners’ assignments of error and brief which referred to the individual plaintiffs below as well as the corporation plaintiff. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, citing Borland v. South Patrick Utility Corporation, 122 So. 2d 44 (Fla.2d DCA 1960), entered an order dismissing the appeal as to the second enumerated judgment and striking from the appeal all parties except the named corporate plaintiff. It is from this order that petitioners have requested this Court to exercis…
-
Vander CAR v. Pitts, 166 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…Circuit Court Case No. 5745. This court has held that separate Notices of Appeal are necessary to appeal judgments rendered in separate cases even though such causes were consolidated for trial. Borland v. South Patrick Utility Corp., Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 44. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of Lillian Caudle v. James Edward Pitts in Circuit Court Case No. 5872, and proceed to consider the appeal of Anna Vander Car v. James Edward Pitts from the judgment entered in Circuit Court Case No. 5745. After…
-
The Drummond Blow Title Corp. v. Ladislaus Blatnick, 157 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…nal Agr. Corp., (1933) 112 Fla. 99, 150 So. 264, in which the Supreme Court said: “It is well settled that separate causes cannot, as a general rule, be brought up by a single writ of error,” and Borland v. South Patrick Utility Corp., Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 44, where it was held that separate notices of appeal were necessary to appeal two judgments rendered in separate cases, even though such causes had been consolidated for trial for convenience. Those authorities are not applicable and controlling here.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Orange Belt Packing Co. v. Int'l Agric. Corp., 112 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1933)
- N. Am. Co. v. Landahl, 107 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)