MV SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LLC
v.
REDUS FLORIDA HOUSING, LLC
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 appellate court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order on appeal disposed of only one count of a two-count third-party complaint, with the remaining count being interrelated and still pending below. The court found this constituted an impermissible piecemeal appeal that would require successive appeals if permitted.
The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the appeal because the order disposed of only count one while count two remained pending below and was interrelated with count one. The appeal did not fall within the exception provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) because the disposed cause of action was interdependent with other pleaded claims.
[1] A partial final judgment on one count of a multi-count complaint is not immediately appealable when the remaining pending counts are interdependent with or interrelated t…
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“This is a classic case of a piecemeal appeal.”
The court characterizing the appeal as piecemeal and explaining why jurisdiction is lacking
Appellee filed a two-count third-party complaint against Appellant arising from a management agreement between the parties. Count one sought contractu…
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 Interdependent Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
March 20, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Upon review of the record and Appellant’s response to our order to show cause on jurisdiction, we find that the claim remaining pending below is interrelated with the claim on appeal, depriving us of jurisdiction. The order on appeal disposes of only count one of Appellee’s two-count third-party complaint against Appellant. Count one seeks contractual and common-law indemnity. Count two, still pending below and stayed pending this appeal, alleges breach of contract for Appellant’s failure to obtain insurance and indemnify Appellee. Both counts relate to the same underlying tort claim against Appellee, and both counts arise out of the same management agreement between the two parties to this appeal. This is a classic case of a piecemeal appeal. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99-100 (Fla. 1974) (holding that piecemeal review is disfavored and the lower tribunal should rule on all interrelated claims to avoid the potential need for successive appeals).
This appeal does not fall within the scope of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), allowing immediate appeals of certain partial final judgments. That rule requires that the cause of action disposed of in the order appealed not be “interdependent with other pleaded claims,” and that is not the case here. Id.; see also Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock’s Excavating Serv., Inc., 186 So. 3d 6, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where claim still pending below involved same facts and contracts as the order appealed).
DISMISSED.
ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Superior Guar. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock's Excavating Serv., Inc., 186 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)