BRIDGE GOLDE,
v.
PIX REALTY, LP,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2020-09-16
No. 19-2271
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2020)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court dismissed an appeal of a circuit court's order denying a tenant's motion to strike a landlord's late-filed answer brief. The court found the order was not a final appealable order and did not fit any exceptions for non-final appealable orders.


Holding

No, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the circuit court's order because it is not a final appealable order and does not fall into any of the categories of non-final appealable orders permitted by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Headnotes

[1] An order denying a motion to strike and object to the late filing of an answer brief in a circuit appellate proceeding is not a final appealable order.

[2] District Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction to review only those non-final trial court orders enumerated in Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedu…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“The Order is not a final appealable order and does not fall into one of the categories of non-final appealable orders set forth in Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”

Establishes the primary reason for dismissal: the order is not appealable.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A tenant appealed a county court's final judgment of possession in favor of the landlord. In the subsequent circuit court appellate proceeding, the te…

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.


Opinion of the Court

LINDSEY, J.

This appeal stems from a commercial eviction of a tenant brought under Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes for nonpayment of rent. The County Court entered a Final Judgment of Possession in favor of Appellee, the landlord, and against Appellant, the tenant. Appellant took an appeal of the County Court’s final judgment to the Circuit Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. In the circuit appellate proceeding, Appellant filed a motion styled, Motion to Strike and Objection to Late Filing of Answer Brief. The Circuit Court entered its Order Denying the Motion (the “Order”), which is the subject of this appeal. The Order is not a final appealable order and does not fall into one of the categories of non-final appealable orders set forth in Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.1 See Local Door Coupons Franchise, Inc. v. Mayers, 261 So. 3d 726, 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“This Court has appellate jurisdiction to review only those non-final trial court orders scheduled in Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.130(a)(3)”); Jenne v. Maranto, 825 So. 2d 409, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The enumerated categories of permissible nonfinal review stated in rule 9.130 must be limited to their plain meaning. The rule does not authorize judges to enlarge its provisions to permit review of nonfinal orders not specified within its provisions.” (citation omitted)). Dismissed.

Footnotes
1 Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B), District Courts of Appeal may review final orders of circuit courts acting in their appellate capacities. “[A] nonfinal order entered by a circuit court in its appellate capacity is not an order that can be appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110 or 9.130.” Hayman v. State, 634 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Moreover, “[w]hether the courts of appeal have certiorari jurisdiction over non-final orders of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity is questionable.” Martin v. Doe, 731 So. 2d 806, 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). But even under our certiorari jurisdiction, dismissal would be proper. See id. (“Although irreparable injury can occur as a result of a non-final order of a trial court, it is difficult for us to conceive of a non-final order of an appellate court which would cause irreparable injury.”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw