PETER KORANDOVITCH AND MARY M. KORANDOVITCH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
VISTA PLANTATION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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.
Appellants appealed two non-final orders from a lower court proceeding involving a condominium association. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely as to one order and the other order was not appealable under the rules governing non-final orders.
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed. The notice of appeal to the first order was untimely, having been filed approximately five months after entry when it was required to be filed within thirty days. The second order was not appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3) because it did not fit within the limited categories of appealable non-final orders, and the appellants failed to obtain a final appealable judgment after being given an opportunity to do so.
[1] An order granting a motion for summary final judgment on a permanent injunction is a non-final order appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Proc…
[2] An appeal from a non-final order must be taken within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An appeal from a non-final order must be taken within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order.”
Establishes the timeliness requirement for appeals from non-final orders under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter and Mary Korandovitch appealed from two non-final orders entered by the lower court in a case involving Vista Plantation Condominium Association…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Before us are two non-final orders, which we now dismiss.
Turning to the first, the order granting appellee’s motion for summary final judgment on a permanent injunction is not a final order. See e.g., Lewis v. North Broward Hospital District, 547 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). However, it is appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See also City of St. Petersburg v. Competition Sails, Inc., 449 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). An appeal from a non-final order must be taken within thirty days of the date of rendition of the order. Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(b). The notice of appeal in this case was filed approximately five months after entry of the non-final order therefore is untimely.
The second order at issue is one granting the appellee’s motion for final summary judgment on attorney’s fees. It too, is a non-final order. However, it is not appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3) because it does not fit within any of the limited categories of appealable non-final orders set forth in the rule. In Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), this court receded from the second aspect of its holding in Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and now holds that where an appeal has been prematurely filed, the appellant is given the opportunity to obtain a final, appealable order before dismissal. By order of this court, on November 10, 1992, appellants were given five days from the date of the order to produce a final appealable judgment. They have failed to do so.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to both orders.
DISMISSED.
FARMER, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweeney v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 806 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…enter the very dismissal that was contemplated by its earlier non-final order on the merits. See Diamond Mortgage Co. v. Mercantile Bank of Kan. City, 634 So. 2d 716, 717 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Korandovitch v. Vista Plantation Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 614 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court’s dismissal of the class action was based on the court’s conclusion that Sweeney stated no individual cause of action. Upon our contrary conclusion here, the stated basis for the trial court’s dismissal of th…
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- The City OF ST. Petersburg v. Competition Sails, Inc., 449 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Lewis v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 547 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Glaze v. State, 547 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)