MACHINERY WHOLESALERS, INC. AND MARK FIELDS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WOLPE, LEIBOWITZ & BROTMAN, 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.
The court held that the dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim is not an appealable order until the original cause of action has been finally resolved.
A law firm sued former clients for unpaid fees. The former clients filed a compulsory counterclaim for legal malpractice. The trial court granted summ…
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 Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
The law firm of Wolpe, Leibowitz & Brotman moves to dismiss the appeal filed by Machinery Wholesalers, Inc. and Mark Fields for want of an appealable order. We grant the motion.
The law firm sued the appellant former clients for unpaid fees for legal services. The former clients filed a compulsory counterclaim for legal malpractice arising from the same representation on which the law firm is seeking to recover fees. On the counterclaim for legal malpractice, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the law firm, and the former clients have appealed. The main claim remains pending below.
“The dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim with prejudice is not considered a final disposition and is, thus, not appealable until a final disposition of the original cause has been obtained on the merits.” Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., 621 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993); see also S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 100 (Fla.1974); Mermel v. Rifkin, 603 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The former clients contend that this court has held otherwise in the context of a compulsory counterclaim in a medical malpractice action. For this proposition they rely on Stein v. Feingold, 629 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). So far as the opinion in that case indicates, the question of appealability of the order disposing of the compulsory counterclaim was neither raised nor addressed.
We dismiss the appeal for want of an appealable order. Any party is free to appeal from the final judgment entered at the conclusion of the case.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. Allen, 621 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Nettie Stein and Arthur Stein v. Feingold, 629 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Mermel v. Rifkin, 603 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)