LUCYANN KUZNITZ
v.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
An appeal from a non-final order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not appealable unless the trial court's order expressly determines as a matter of law that the settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed.
[1] An appeal from a non-final order is only cognizable if the order falls within the specific categories enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3), inclu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because the trial court's order . . . did not expressly determine, as a matter of law, that a settlement agreement never existed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
Court's reasoning for dismissal, citing Nuñez v. Casals, 393 So. 3d 754, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Kuznitz appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County denying her renewed motion to enforce a settlement agreement and for r…
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 Settlement Agreement Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 20, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1362 Lower Tribunal No. 16-2257-CA-01 ________________
Lucyann Kuznitz, Appellant,
vs.
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Neblett Law Group, and David A. Neblett and James M. Mahaffey III, for appellant.
Bush Ross, P.A., and Bryan D. Hull (Tampa), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
GORDO, J.
2
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Appellant Lucyann Kuznitz (“Kuznitz”) appeals a non-final order denying her renewed motion to enforce settlement agreement and for reconsideration. On July 23, 2025, this Court ordered Kuznitz to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as taken from a non-final, nonappealable order. Upon review of the response, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as it arises from a non-final, non-appealable order. See Dexx Med. Indus., CA v. Fitesa Naotecidos S.A., 346 So. 3d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Our appellate jurisdiction to review non-final orders is limited to only those orders specifically listed in rule 9.130(a)(3).”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix) (authorizing appeals of non-final orders determining “that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed”); Nuñez v. Casals, 393 So. 3d 754, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“Because the trial court’s order . . . did not expressly determine, as a matter of law, that a settlement agreement never existed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dexx Med. Indus. v. Fitesa Naotecidos S.A., 346 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)