A-1 TRUCK RENTALS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS VILBERG, 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.
A-1 Truck Rentals appeals from an amended judgment in an accounting suit. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the initial judgment. The court held that judgments determining the right to an accounting are interlocutory orders, not final judgments, and therefore the trial court retained jurisdiction to amend the judgment outside the 30-day window.
Judgments determining the right to an accounting in an equitable proceeding are interlocutory orders, not final judgments. Because the trial court retains jurisdiction over an accounting suit until final determination, it may amend or modify an interlocutory order at any time before entering final judgment. Therefore, the Motion for Clarification was timely filed, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the December 5 amended judgment, and the appeal from the amended judgment is properly an interlocutory appeal not subject to dismissal.
“a suit for an accounting is ordinarily a two-stage proceeding. The procedure calls first for the establishment of the right or basis for the accounting with the actual accounting following in accordance with the earlier determination.”
Establishes the procedural nature of accounting suits as two-stage proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA-1 Truck Rentals sued Thomas Vilberg for an accounting. On August 1, 1968, the trial court entered a judgment requiring an accounting. On October 30,…
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 Equitable Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the notice of appeal was filed after the expiration of 30 days from the rendition of the judgment appealed from (an “Amended Judgment and Order of Clarification of Judgment” in a suit for an accounting).
The important dates are:
1. August 1, 1968: Recording (and therefore rendition1) of judgment requiring accounting.
2. October 30, 1968: Filing of Motion for Clarification of Judgment.
3. December 5, 1968: Recording (and therefore rendition2) of Amended Judgment and Order of Clarification of Judgment.
4. January 6, 1969: Filing of Notice of Appeal directed to Amended Judgment and Order of Clarification of Judgment.
*444The motion to dismiss urges: (1) the judgment of August 1 requiring an accounting was a final judgment and appeal-able as such; (2) the motion of October 30 was not filed within the time allowed for petitions for rehearings; (3) the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment of December 5, and in actuality the amended judgment was a refiling of the judgment of August 1; (4) therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to review the subject matter of the amended judgment, and the appeal should be dismissed.
We think that appellant’s motion is not well founded. It overlooks the fact that a suit for an accounting is ordinarily a two-stage proceeding. The procedure calls first for the establishment of the right or basis for the accounting with the actual accounting following in accordance with the earlier determination. See Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798. In addition a suit for an accounting is an equitable proceeding in which the court retains jurisdiction until the final determination in order to render a comprehensive final judgment. See McMullen v. Fort Pierce Financing & Construction Co., 108 Fla. 492, 146 So. 567, 569 (1933).
Courts of this state have accepted appeals from orders determining the right to an accounting as appeals from interlocutory orders. Gladman v. Hallam, Fla. App.1958, 104 So.2d 46; McCann Plumbing Co. v. Plumbing Industry Program, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 26; Carberry v. Foley, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 425. This fact suggests to us that judgments determining the right to an accounting are interlocutory orders. We now hold that they are.
A close examination of Rules 1.530(b) and 1.530(g), R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., convinces us that they do not apply to interlocutory orders. They apply only to final judgments,3 because a trial court after issuing an interlocutory order retains jurisdiction over a cause and has power to do all things necessary to enable it to reach a final judgment.4 It follows that a trial court has jurisdiction to amend or modify an interlocutory order any time before it enters final judgment. We conclude that the Motion for Clarification of Judgment was filed timely and that the trial court therefore had jurisdiction to enter the judgment of December 5. That judgment is an interlocutory order and the present appeal from it is properly an interlocutory appeal. As such it is not subject to dismissal for failure to appeal from a prior interlocutory order.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ions to the special master’s report was an interlocutory order and that such an order does not bar a subsequent consideration of property matters which were not ruled upon in the master’s report. See A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 442.…
-
Heritage Paper Co., Inc. v. Farah, 440 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ering that the same be had, were non-final but appealable orders. See McCann Plumbing Co. v. Plumbing Industry Program, Inc., 105 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Carberry v. Foley, 206 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, 222 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). In 1977, however, procedures for taking interlocutory appeals were extensively altered to provide for review of only a limited group of non-final orders “based upon the necessity or desirability of expeditious review.” 32 Fla.Sta…1 / 2
-
David v. Tansill, 297 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…unting is settled. This case has been followed by Wood v. Brackett, 266 So. 2d 398 (Fla.App.1972); Stanton Investment Company v. Simon, 255 So. 2d 557 (Fla.App.1971); Boyd v. Walker, 251 So. 2d 332 (Fla.App.1971); A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, 222 So. 2d 442 (Fla.App.1969); Armstrong v. Piatt, 201 So. 2d 830 (Fla.App.1967) and cases cited therein. In the instant case, items set forth in numbered paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 could only have relevance as to the amount of any sums that might be due the plaint…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956)
- Ala. Hotel Co. v. The J. L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1923)
- McMullen v. Fort Pierce Fin. & Constr. Co., 108 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1933)
- State ex rel. First Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Southerland, 108 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1933)
- Cooper v. Fulton, 107 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- McCANN Plumbing Co. v. Plumbing Indus. Program, Inc., 105 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Barber v. N. Shore Hosp., Inc., 133 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Gladman v. Hallam, 104 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Heath v. Miller, 208 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)