SHARONDA RIVERS
v.
BRITE HOUSES LLC PATRICIA GETFORD
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 First District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order granting a directed verdict was neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order, as it did not enter judgment or dispose of the pending action.
An order granting a directed verdict that directs the jury to return a verdict for defendants but does not enter judgment or dispose of the pending action is not a final or appealable non-final order.
[1] An order granting a directed verdict that directs the jury to return a verdict but does not enter judgment or dispose of the pending action is not a final or appealable n…
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 intelligenceSharonda Rivers appealed from a trial court order titled Final Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Directed Verdict on claims of breach of contract …
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 Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the Court’s order of July 3, 2018, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant seeks review of an order titled Final Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Directed Verdict. The order is neither a final order, nor an appealable nonfinal order. Although it concludes that Appellant has failed to state a cause of action on claims of breach of contract and fraud, the order directs that the jury be instructed to return a verdict in favor of the defendants on those causes of action. It does not enter judgment or otherwise dispose of the pending action. Appellees’ motion to dismiss, filed on June 27, 2018, is denied.
WOLF, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Sharonda Rivers, pro se, Appellant.
Robert W. Bauer and Maria Perez Youngblood of The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellees.
2