LONGLEAF C & D DISPOSAL FACILITY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GREEN'S FILL DIRT, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, ANTHONY J. GREEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ANTHONY J. GREEN, III, AN INDIVIDUAL, GREGORY B. GREEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND GFD CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2012-10-10
No. 1D12-3102
CLARK, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
98 So. 3d 1250 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

Longleaf C & D Disposal Facility appealed a final judgment in a boundary dispute case involving trespass and ejectment claims. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed and the final judgment did not resolve all claims.


Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders because no final order has been entered in the case, and the notice of appeal failed to timely invoke the court's jurisdiction. The Final Judgment does not constitute an appealable partial final judgment because the ejectment and trespass claims arise from a common set of facts, and the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the Final Judgment's rendition.


Headnotes

[1] An order is not reviewable as a final partial judgment when there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.

[2] A notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after the rendition of a nonfinal order is untimely.

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

Key Quotes

“The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders at this time because no final order has been entered in this case and, to the extent that the Final Judgment determined the right to immediate possession of property, appellant's notice of appeal failed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.”

Establishes the basis for dismissal—lack of jurisdiction due to prematurity and failure to properly invoke jurisdiction.

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

The case arose from a boundary dispute in which the appellees excavated and used portions of appellant's land to dump debris. The trial court entered …

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a Final Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, entered May 4, 2012 (“Final Judgment”), and an Order Denying Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, entered May 21, 2012 (“Order on Motions”). The notice of appeal, filed June 18, 2012, was filed within 30 days of the Order on Motions but not within 30 days of the Final Judgment. In the Final Judgment, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to enter a judgment for nominal damages on appellant’s trespass claim, contemplating that a future evidentiary hearing to determine the amount may be required. Otherwise, the Final Judgment appears to resolve the claims raised in the proceedings below, all of which arose from a boundary dispute and appellees’ excavation and use of portions of appellant’s land to dump debris. However, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders at this time because no final order has been entered in this case and, to the extent that the Final Judgment determined the right to immediate possession of property, appellant’s notice of appeal failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.

An order is reviewable as a partial final judgment when it resolves a separate and distinct cause of action. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k). However, an order is not reviewable as final under this rule where there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order. Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So.2d *12511218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Contrary to appellant’s position on appeal, for purposes of bringing this appeal, the Final Judgment does not finally resolve appellant’s ejectment claim irrespective of the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction because the ejectment claim and the trespass claim both arise out of a common set of facts. Therefore, the order is not an ap-pealable partial final judgment. To the extent that the Final Judgment was immediately reviewable as a nonfinal order under rule 9.130, appellant’s notice of appeal failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). Rendition of a nonfinal order is not delayed by a motion for rehearing. Ward v. Bragg, 957 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Therefore, the Final Judgment was rendered when it was filed, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h), and appellant’s notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after rendition was untimely. Finally, the Order on Motions is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order entered after final judgment. See Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First Street Mortgage Corp., 870 So.2d 93, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

DISMISSED.

CLARK, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bryant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
    …peal was filed on January 10, 2014. Bryant’s failure to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of rendition precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction-over the appeal. See Longleaf C & D Disposal Facility, Inc. v. Green’s Fill Dirt, Inc., 98 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Stok v. Cabrera, 774 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Chandler, 101 So. 3d at 949 (“Florida courts are required to dismiss an appellate proceeding if it was not initiated within the applicable time limit.”). - Finally, w…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw