JAMES G. LINCE, THE BARTOS GROUP, LLC AND TODD R. BARTOS, ESQ.
v.
PELICAN CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL.
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.
Orders granting summary judgment without entering final judgment are not appealable, and the appeal of such orders must be dismissed.
[1] An order that merely grants a motion for summary judgment without also entering judgment is not a final order appealable as of right, nor is it an appealable nonfinal ord…
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“The traditional test for finality is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for execution and enforcement of the decree if necessary.”
Court citing Hoffman v. Hall in explaining the finality requirement for appealable orders.
Lince raised claims in a fourth amended complaint against Pelican Circle Association and other defendants. The trial court granted nine summary judgme…
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 Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-0782 _____________________________
JAMES G. LINCE, THE BARTOS
GROUP, LLC and TODD R. BARTOS, ESQ.,
Appellants,
v.
PELICAN CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. David W. Green, Judge.
October 8, 2025
PER CURIAM.
James G. Lince seeks review of nine orders granting summary judgment on claims he raised in his fourth amended complaint and of two final judgments awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm without comment the orders awarding attorney’s fees to the Garris defendants and to the Watson defendants entered on February 19, 2024.
2
We dismiss the appeal as to the remaining orders because they are not final orders nor are they nonfinal orders appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3) (listing the types of appealable nonfinal orders); Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“The traditional test for finality is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for execution and enforcement of the decree if necessary.”); Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that an order that merely grants a motion for summary judgment, without also entering judgment, is not final). They are also not appealable as partial final judgments. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (explaining that “[a] partial final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims”).
AFFIRMED, in part, DISMISSED, in part. LEWIS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Kristin Matthews and Todd R. Bartos of The Bartos Group, LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Darryl Steve Traylor, Jr. and T.A. Borowski, Jr., Borowski & Traylor, P.A., Pensacola; and Therese A. Savona of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)