SOUTH SHORE CONDO VENTURE
v.
THE 20 CONDO ASSOC.
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 order granting summary judgment on one party's standing to intervene does not constitute a final appealable order when other factually and legally related claims remain pending between the same parties.
[1] An order granting summary judgment on a party's standing to intervene is not a final judgment when a factually and legally related cause of action remains pending in the…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought to intervene in a pending lawsuit against Appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment against Appellant on the ground that App…
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 Void Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
Although labeled a final summary judgment, the order under review did not complete the judicial labor in the case below. In Appellant’s cause of action to intervene in a pending lawsuit, the order under review granted summary judgment for Appellee on the basis that Appellant lacked standing because the purchase of his unit violated the declaration of condominium. Still pending before the trial court, however, is the Appellee’s cause of action against the Appellant for a declaratory judgment that the Appellant’s deed for purchase of the unit was void due, at least in part, to the same defects. Because these matters are not factually or legally independent from each other, the order under review does not qualify as a partial final judgment. We therefore dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965)
- United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983)