BODELET JOSEPH
v.
THE LEISURE DAYS, LLC
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 appellant's failure to raise issues in a motion to vacate below results in waiver of those issues on appeal, and an order granting summary judgment on a counterclaim is not a final appealable order when additional pleadings remain pending.
[1] Issues not raised in a motion to vacate below are waived and cannot be reviewed on appeal from an eviction judgment.
[2] An order granting summary judgment on a counterclaim is not a final appealable order when additional pleadings remain pending in the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBodelet Joseph, a tenant, was evicted by The Leisure Days LLC. Joseph appealed both the eviction judgment and an order dismissing part of his counterc…
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 Jurisdiction On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Edmond Alonzo, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562020CC000757 and 562020AP000013XXXXXX.
Bodelet Joseph, Port St. Lucie, pro se. Jonathon Daily of Daily Law, PLLC, Port St. Lucie, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges a judgment of tenant eviction as well as an order dismissing part of his counterclaim and granting summary judgment as to the remaining issue. We have jurisdiction regarding the final judgment of eviction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). However, the issues raised in appellant’s brief were not preserved below, as appellant failed to raise the issues in his motion to vacate the judgment. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. As to the order dismissing part of his counterclaim and granting summary judgment as to part of his counterclaim, we dismiss the appeal, because the order is not final. See Hernandez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 32 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (order merely granting a motion to dismiss is not a final order for appeal); Gen. Textile Co., Inc. v. Martin County, 542 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (order merely granting summary judgment is not a final, appealable order). We have not issued an order allowing appellant to obtain a final appealable order, because we are not convinced that the matter is final in the trial court, as additional pleadings appear in the record after the order sought to be appealed.
2
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rufino Hernandez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 32 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Gen. Textile Co., Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 542 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)