HEIDI HOLDRIDGE AND RICHARD HOLDRIDGE V.REBECCA ANDERSON
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.
The Holdridges appealed a trial court's orders ratifying a settlement and addressing a defendant's motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate a counterclaim. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the orders were neither final nor enumerated non-final appealable orders under Florida law.
The court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the orders in question were neither final orders containing unequivocal language of finality nor enumerated non-final appealable orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
[1] A trial court order ratifying settlement and denying a motion to vacate dismissal lacks jurisdictional finality for appellate review unless it contains unequivocal langua…
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“District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals . . . from final judgment or orders of trial courts”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement that appealed orders must be final or enumerated non-final appealable orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Holdridges, proceeding pro se, appealed two trial court orders from their underlying case against Rebecca Anderson. The first order ratified a set…
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 Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
December 11, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Heidi and Richard Holdridge appeal the trial court’s Order Ratifying Settlement, and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Counterclaim. But the orders are not final, see Holland v. Holland, 140 So. 3d 1155, 1156–57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (establishing that final orders must “contain ‘unequivocal language of finality’”), nor an enumerated non-final appealable order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. Thus, we lack jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (“District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals . . . from final judgment or orders of trial courts[.]”); see also Bateman v. Regions Bank, Heron Dev. Grp., Inc., 367 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (dismissing an appeal of a non-final order not listed in rule 9.130).
DISMISSED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holdridge, 367 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…9.130. Thus, we lack jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (“District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals . . . from final judgment or orders of trial courts[.]”); see also Bateman v. Regions Bank, Heron Dev. Grp., Inc., 367 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (dismissing an appeal of a non-final order not listed in rule 9.130). DISMISSED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized moti…
Authorities Cited
- Holland v. Holland, 140 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Holdridge, 367 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)