QUATERA SHENEQUA GOULD N/K/A NASSIA BIANCA QUATERA ARENAS
v.
FAIRWINDS MOTEL, INC. D/B/A AMERICA'S BEST INN & SUITES
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.
Appellant appealed a final judgment entered on an arbitration decision after failing to timely request a trial de novo. Appellant sought relief under Rule 1.540(b) claiming calendaring system errors, but the trial court denied the motion without prejudice. The court affirmed the judgment and dismissed the appeal regarding the Rule 1.540(b) order as non-final and not properly designated for appeal.
The court affirmed the final arbitration judgment and dismissed the appeal regarding the Rule 1.540(b) order denial. The denial order was non-final and non-appealable because it was denied without prejudice, and it was not properly designated in the notice of appeal.
[1] An order denying a motion for relief from judgment without prejudice is non-final and non-appealable.
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 failed to request a trial de novo within the required timeframe following an arbitration decision in favor of appellee. The day after judgme…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a final judgment entered on an arbitration decision in favor of appellee after appellant failed to request a trial de novo, pursuant to section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). The day after the judgment was entered, appellant filed a motion for relief of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellant’s counsel claimed that he failed to request the trial de novo because of technical issues with his calendaring system. After a hearing, the trial court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The court denied the rule 1.540(b) motion without prejudice, allowing appellant to file an amended motion and to then set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, appellant filed a notice of appeal, appealing the final judgment.
Appellant has not raised any issue with respect to the final judgment in this appeal. Therefore, we affirm. As to appellant’s arguments made regarding the denial of the motion for relief, not only was that order not designated in the notice of appeal as an order sought to be appealed, but also the order denied the motion for relief without prejudice, making it a nonfinal, non-appealable order. See Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Champlin Ref. Co. v. Gasoline Prods. Co., 29 F.2d 331 (1st Cir. 1928)…n the courts are enabled to do justice between the parties in cases not strictly within the provisions of the statute. * * * The criterion by which it is to be determined is whether it is equitable.” And in Crummett v. Littlefield, 98 Me. 317, 320, 56 A. 1053, 1054, the same learned court said: “The equitable right of set-off is not dependent upon the express provisions of statute, but is derived from the rules of the civil law and founded upon principles of natural equity and justice. In applying the do…
Authorities Cited
- Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)