TRIAX, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DULY ORGANIZED UNDER THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Triax, Inc. appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to amend its complaint after final judgment was entered against it. The appellate court holds that despite improper designation, it will treat the appeal as a perfected interlocutory appeal under Rule 4.2(a), and therefore denies the appellee's motion to dismiss.
The appellate court holds that despite appellant's failure to designate the appeal as interlocutory, the court has discretion to treat the appeal as a perfected interlocutory appeal under Rule 4.2(a), and therefore the motion to dismiss is denied.
“Since Rule 4.2(a) makes a provision for the interlocutory appeal of this type order, i. e., an order after final judgment in a law action, we shall treat this appeal as a perfected interlocutory appeal.”
The court's holding that it has discretion to treat the improperly designated appeal as an interlocutory appeal under the applicable procedural rule.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 26, 1966, the trial court heard testimony and arguments regarding Triax's claim for damages based on an alleged oral contract with the City of …
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the court on appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s appeal.
On May 26, 1966, the lower court heard testimony and arguments of counsel in the case sub judice. In its final judgment the court set forth the following:
“1. That Plaintiff, Triax, Inc., relied for recovery of its claim for damages upon an oral contract; which contract *871was purported to have been the act of a single city official.
“2. That no evidence was presented to show that the act of said city official was an authorized act of the city commission.
“3. That the testimony of Plaintiff’s witnesses affirmatively showed that the alleged oral contract was one which the parties did not contemplate would be performed within one year.
“From the foregoing findings of fact, the Court concludes that:
“1. The alleged oral contract if same existed was the ultra vires act of an individual commissioner which has no binding effect upon the Defendant City.
“2. That the alleged oral contract is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
“3. That Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor.”
Seven days after entry of the final judgment appellant filed a motion for permission to amend its complaint to conform with the evidence as provided in Rule 1.15(b), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Appellant seeks to amend its complaint on the issues of appellant’s right to damages so as to plead quantum meruit or in the alternative to plead a cause of action in general assumpsit.
In denying appellant’s motion to amend, the court stated in part:
“ * * * that the issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion to amend were not tried by the express or implied consent of the parties; that the subject motion, in order to avoid prejudice to the defendant, should more properly have been made at some time prior to the entry of final judgment. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The order entered by the trial judge clearly shows that this motion had not been considered prior to the final judgment. Further appellant in its motion did not ask for a new trial or for reconsideration. Therefore said order is appealable under Rule 4.2(a), 31 F.S.A. by interlocutory appeal.
Even though appellant failed to designate in his notice of appeal that he was taking an interlocutory appeal, we have the discretion to treat this attempted direct appeal of the order in question as an interlocutory appeal under the same reasoning as set out in the following cases in equity: Ringsmith v. Squibb, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So.2d 59; Crepaldi v. Wagner, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 759; Burton v. Sanders, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 591; and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 680. Since Rule 4.2(a) makes a provision for the interlocutory appeal of this type order, i. e., an order after final judgment in a law action, we shall treat this appeal as a perfected interlocutory appeal. Therefore, appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Triax, Inc. v. City OF Treasure Island, 208 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
-
DeWITT v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 268 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…of liability for punitive damages, and the appeal should have been designated as an interlocutory appeal as provided by F.A.R. 4.2. However, we shall treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal, Triax, Inc. v. City of Treasure Island, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 870; Rivers v. Ellman, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 456. Turning to the question of whether the lower Court erred in granting Seaboard’s motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages, there was no evidence that Seaboard’s negligence was of a gross and…
-
Rivers v. Richard Ellman et ux., 206 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…wever, we do have the discretion to treat the appeal of the order denying appellant’s motion as an interlocutory appeal under Rule 4.2 of the Florida Appellate Rules, 1962 revision, 32 F.S.A. See Triax, Inc. v. City of Treasure Island, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 870, and cases cited therein. We will consider the appeal of the order denying the appellant’s motion as a perfected interlocutory appeal. After a careful consideration of the briefs and record-on-appeal, we find that the appellant has failed to demon…
Authorities Cited
- Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- In re Crepaldi v. Wagner, 128 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Belman Hotel Corp. v. Pierce J. Maher, 170 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ringsmith v. Squibb, 193 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)