JOEL EDWARD CHANDLER
v.
MOTIVEPOWER, INC.
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.
A trial court's order granting summary judgment is affirmed, but an appeal challenging the trial court's reservation of attorney fees is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because such reservation does not constitute a final, appealable order.
[1] An order reserving jurisdiction over attorney fees without determining entitlement or setting a specific amount is not a final, appealable order and must be dismissed for…
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 intelligence“dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging attorney fees because not only was the order ambiguous as to entitlement but it also failed to set an amount of fees thereby rendering that portion of the final judgment nonfinal and nonappealable”
The court's reasoning for dismissing the appeal of attorney fees as lacking jurisdiction
Joel Edward Chandler appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Polk County in favor of MotivePower, Inc., and also challenged …
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 General Venue Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's order granting summary judgment without further comment. However, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal challenging the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction on attorney fees. See, e.g., Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging attorney fees because not only was the order ambiguous as to entitlement but it also failed to set an amount of fees thereby rendering that portion of the final judgment nonfinal and nonappealable).
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
KELLY, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vernell Carroll v. Carroll, 341 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1977)
- Suzzann Evans Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- McINTIRE v. McINTIRE, 352 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Radziwon v. Gutillo, 447 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)