WILLIE J. PREYER, MILDRED PREYER
v.
EMERALD COAST UTILILTIES AUTHORITY ET AL.
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 an order dismissing a cross-claim is premature when the underlying action involving the same parties and transaction remains pending.
[1] An appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a cross-claim is premature and subject to dismissal when the underlying action involving the same parties and transaction…
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“piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”
Court citing S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) for the principle that orders not finally ending judicial labor cannot be appealed.
Appellants Willie J. Preyer and Mildred Preyer appealed an order dismissing their cross-claim with prejudice. The underlying action to apportion funds…
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 Interrelated Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D17-1949 _____________________________
WILLIE J. PREYER, MILDRED
PREYER,
Appellants,
v.
EMERALD COAST UTILITIES
AUTHORITY, CAROLYN JOHNSON, and CALLIE ANDERSON,
Appellees. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. William P. White, Jr., and Darlene F. Dickey, Judges.
May 3, 2018
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order dismissing their crossclaim with prejudice. The underlying action to apportion funds pursuant to section 73.101, Florida Statutes, remains pending. The Court has therefore determined that the appeal is premature. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (if an order does not finally end the judicial labor required, "piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.") Accordingly, Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as premature.
2
WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Robert Allen, Pensacola, for Appellants.
J. Alistair McKenzie of the McKenzie Law Firm, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellees Carolyn Johnson and Callie Anderson.
No appearance for Emerald Coast Utilities Authority.