FRANK V. REILLY, PETITIONER,
v.
DESIGN BUILD INTERAMERICAN, 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.
Florida appellate court denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a sanctions order against the petitioner, holding that the order was not a final appealable order because it lacked words of finality.
An order imposing sanctions that does not contain words of finality such as 'for which let execution issue' is not an appealable final order.
[1] An order imposing sanctions that lacks words of finality such as 'for which let execution issue' is not a final appealable order subject to certiorari review.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank V. Reilly petitioned for certiorari to contest a trial court order imposing $500 in sanctions against him, which arose from a motion for sanctio…
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 Contempt Order cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari in which Frank V. Reilly contests an “Order on Reilly Roche, LLP’s Motion for Sanctions against David J. Val-dini, Esquire.” Instead of assessing sanctions against Valdini, the trial court imposed sanctions in the amount of $500 against Reilly. We deny the petition, finding that the order is not an appealable final order because it does not contain any words of finality, such as “for which let execution issue.”
“The applicable standard of review [by certiorari of a contempt order] is whether the challenged order (1) constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below; and (3) causes injury that is irreparable, as it effectively leaves no adequate remedy at law.” Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1995); Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983)). Reilly has not adequately explained why he has no adequate remedy on appeal once the sanction order is reduced to a final judgment. Although we are sympathetic to the argument that a motion to impose sanctions against Valdini could not result in sanctions against Reilly without a motion or notice to him, we must deny certiorari without prejudice.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Jackson, 98 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…tial requirements of the law; (2) causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below; and (3) causes injury that is irreparable, as it effectively leaves no adequate remedy at law.’ ” Reilly v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc., 954 So. 2d 673, 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). In a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay ... alimony, the movant must show that a prior court order directed the party to pay the support…
-
Glover v. Vasallo (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)