GILBERT WILLIAM SCHEEL, PETITIONER,
v.
ADVANCE MARKETING CONSULTANTS, INC., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court discharged a petition for certiorari challenging the Fourth District Court's dismissal of an appeal from a trial court order transferring a fraud suit from the Circuit Court to the Court of Record based on the damages amount. The Court held that while the transfer would normally constitute a final, appealable judgment, the intervening merger of these two courts under the new Article V of the Florida Constitution rendered the transfer an interlocutory order within a single court, precluding immediate appeal of the damage amount determination.
The petition for certiorari is discharged. While the transfer would have constituted a final appealable judgment under prior law (as established in Beck v. Barnett National Bank), the merger of the Court of Record into the Circuit Court under Article V converts the transfer into an interlocutory order within a single trial court. Accordingly, any appeal regarding the damage determination must await the eventual outcome of the underlying common law action and be considered upon final appeal from the ultimate result.
[1] A transfer of a cause at law to the equity side of the court constitutes an effective termination of the litigation concerning the action at law, rendering the order of t…
[2] Constitutional amendments merging courts can alter the finality of prior orders for purposes of appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a transfer of a cause at law to the equity side of the court to be an effective termination of the litigation insofar as it concerned the action at law which was thereby concluded. Accordingly, an appeal of the lower court's order was held proper.”
Establishes the prior law under Beck v. Barnett holding that transfers between courts constituted final appealable judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Scheel filed a suit for fraud alleging damages of $80,000 and demanding a jury trial. The trial court determined the suit involved damages …
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 Jurisdictional Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
Conflict is the basis for our jurisdiction.1 Oral argument was waived. The Fourth District Court’s order dismissing the appeal in this cause collides with an earlier First District opinion by then Chief Judge Wigginton in Beck v. Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, 117 So.2d 45 (Fla.App.lst 1960), which correctly held a *774transfer of a cause at law to the equity side of the court to be an effective termination of the litigation insofar as it concerned the action at law which was thereby concluded. Accordingly, an appeal of the lower court’s order was held proper. Beck pointed out that there would be no further orders or judgments on the law side of the court regarding the matter and that the order of transfer therefore constituted a final judgment from which direct appeal lies.
Essentially, petitioner’s suit here is for fraud alleging damages of $80,000.00 and demanding jury trial. It was determined by the Circuit Judge to be a suit for damages not exceeding $3,576.96. Accordingly, this being below the jurisdictional minimum of the Circuit Court, the cause was transferred to the Court of Record.
The finality of a trial court’s action as to the right which is appealed, was recently made clear regarding the right of appeal from a probate court order in Sutton v. Stear, 264 So.2d 838 (Fla.1972). Levine v. Knowles, 197 So.2d 329 (Fla.App.3d 1967) cited by respondent, reached the right result in considering the merits of a trial court’s striking punitive damages which so affected jurisdictional amount as to divest the trial court of authority to act further.
Beck and Levine, however, were prior to new Article V, Fla.Const. effective January 1, 1973, which has intervened during pendency of this appeal. Article V merged the Court of Record into the Circuit Court so that the two courts involved below have become one and the same. Thus what was a “transfer” becomes in effect, by virtue of Article V, what amounts to an “order striking items of damages” within the same trial court. Error is preserved for review on any eventual appeal from what is now a single court. The reasons in the foregoing former cases are therefore no longer controlling, in which cases the right of recovery in the higher amount had by virtue of the order of transfer been terminated and become ripe for appeal.
Except for the intervening merger of the two courts under Article V, we were prepared to remand the cause to the Fourth District to be considered on the merits of the appeal which was taken there. However, in light of the intervening change, any appeal with regard to the damage issue must abide the eventual outcome of this common law action when and if any appeal from the ultimate result is taken, thereupon to be considered upon the legal and factual merits as they may appear from such a review, since of course interlocutory appeals in common law actions do not lie, with certain exceptions in F.A.R. § 4.2, 32 F.S.A.
We do note in passing, however, that respondent’s contention that the notice of appeal in the instant case could not be separately considered as to this respondent since it included an appeal also from a judgment for another defendant, is not well taken. The one notice of appeal is sufficient as to both orders appealed from.2
In these circumstances the petition for certiorari must be and is
Discharged.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…l, whether criminal or civil, results in more than 1 final judgment and an appeal of more than 1 is sought. This rule is intended to further the policies underlying the decisions of the supreme court in Scheel v. Advance Marketing Consultants, Inc., 277 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1973), and Hollimon v. State, 232 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1970). This rule does not authorize the appeal of multiple final judgments unless otherwise proper as to each. If a prematurely filed notice is held in abeyance in accordance with Williams v. St…
-
In re Proposed Florida Appellate Rules, 351 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1977)…hether criminal or civil, results in more than one final judgment and an appeal of more than one is sought. This rule is intended to further the policies underlying the decisions of the Supreme Court in Scheel v. Advance Marketing Consultants, Inc., 277 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1973), and Hollimon v. State, 232 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1970). This rule does not authorize the appeal of multiple final judgments unless otherwise proper as to each. Where a prematurely filed notice is held in abeyance in accordance with Williams v.…
-
Amendments TO THE Fla. Rules OF Civil Procedure (TWO Year Cycle) & Fla. Rule of App. Procedure 9.110, 858 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2003)…er criminal or civil, results in more than 1 final judgment and an appeal of more than 1 is sought. This rule is intended to further the policies underlying the decisions of the supreme court in Scheel v. [*1052] Advance Marketing Consultants, Inc., 277 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1973), and Hollimon v. State, 232 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1970). This rule does not authorize the appeal of multiple final judgments unless otherwise proper as to each. If a prematurely filed notice is held in abeyance in accordance with Williams v. St…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Levine v. Knowles, 197 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Brown v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 267 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1972)
- Gerhard T. Beck v. Barnett Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 117 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Green v. Jack Green (Arthur Kline, 264 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1972)
- Sutton v. Stear, 264 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1972)
- Webster v. State, 235 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1970)