INNOVISION PRACTICE GROUP, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, 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.
Innovision appeals a partial final judgment entered by the trial court on one count of a multi-count complaint. The appellate court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, finding the partial judgment improper because it authorized execution while interrelated counts remained pending, and granted the petition to quash the judgment.
The partial final judgment is not appealable because count one is interrelated with remaining pending counts. However, certiorari is available to review the judgment's form, and the jurisdictional requirements of certiorari are met because Innovision is materially injured and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by authorizing execution while interrelated claims remained pending.
[1] A partial final judgment that allows for execution while interrelated claims remain pending is not appealable and may be reviewed by writ of certiorari.
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by authorizing execution on a partial judgment when other interrelated claims are still pending.
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“the judgment is not final or appealable because count one is interrelated with the remaining counts pending before the trial court”
Establishes the threshold problem with the partial judgment—it lacks finality because of pending interrelated claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInnovision obtained a business loan from Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB & T). When Innovision defaulted, BB & T filed a seven-count complaint, f…
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 Execution Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Innovision Practice Group, P.A., (Innovision) appeals a partial final judgment entered in favor of Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB & T). For the reasons explained below, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the partial final judgment.
Innovision obtained a business loan from BB & T. When Innovision defaulted on the business loan, BB & T filed a seven-count complaint against Innovision; five counts of which pertained to the business loan. Innovision filed an'answer that included two counterclaims. Subsequently, the trial court entered a partial final judgment on count one, which pertained to the business loan. The partial final judgment included the language “for all of which sums let execution issue.”
Innovision attempts to appeal the partial final judgment. However, the judgment is not final or appealable because count one is interrelated with the remaining counts pending before the trial court. See S.L.T. Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla.1974). The fact that the judgment authorizes execution is problematic; while BB & T may seek enforcement of the judgment, Innovision may not obtain review until the trial court renders a final order. For the reasons explained in East Avenue, LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So.3d 659, 2014 WL 185205 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 17, 2014), we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.
The facts of this case are nearly identical to the facts in East Avenue. In East Avenue, we held that the amended summary final judgment was not appealable because it resolved only three counts of a multicount complaint while other factually and legally interrelated counts remained pending before the trial court. Id. The judgment contained language authorizing execution, which allowed Insignia to enforce the judgment and left East Avenue unable to seek appellate review. Id. We concluded that in this situation, “certiorari is available to review the form of an order, if not its underlying merits, insofar as it permits execution prior to rendition of an appealable final judgment.” Id. at 664. *503We held that the requirements of certiora-ri were satisfied because East Avenue was materially injured and the injury could not be remedied on appeal and that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it let execution issue on the judgment while other interrelated claims remained pending before the court. Id. at 665. Ultimately, we granted the petition and quashed the judgment. Id.
Here, it is apparent that the jurisdictional requirements of certiorari are met. Innovision is materially injured because BB & T can enforce the judgment while Innovision is unable to obtain appellate review of the judgment. See id. Furthermore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it authorized execution of the partial final judgment while interrelated claims remained pending before the trial court. Id. Therefore, we grant the petition and quash the partial final judgment.1
Petition for writ of certiorari granted; judgment quashed.
VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pro-Karting Experience, Inc. v. 34th St., 378 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…llowed execution but not reaching the merits because, " 'under traditional rules of finality,' the partial summary judgment was not final or appealable" (quoting E. Ave., 136 So. 3d at 661)); Innovision Prac. Grp., P.A. v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 135 So. 3d 501, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (relying upon East Avenue and noting that certiorari review was available because"[t]he partial final judgment included the language 'for all of which sums let execution issue' "). Here, the Order does not contain the languag…
-
Delong v. Paradise Lakes Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 210 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…tered in favor of Paradise Lakes Condominium Association. However, the judgment is not final or appealable because the circuit court did not resolve DeLong’s interrelated counterclaims. See Innovision Practice Grp., P.A. v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 135 So. 3d 501, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Because the court departed from the essential requirements of law when it authorized the sale of the property1 prior to the rendition of an ap-pealable final judgment, and because there is no available appellate remedy that…
-
Geisela Garcia v. Ramos (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2017)
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- E. Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)