S.U.R., LLC
v.
FONDO DE INVERSION STELLA
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.
An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees but not determining the amount is non-final and non-appealable, and issues not timely raised or properly presented to the trial court are waived for appeal.
[1] An order determining entitlement to attorney's fees and costs but not fixing the amount thereof is a non-final, non-appealable order.
[2] An issue not timely raised before the trial court or not presented with the specific legal argument to be raised on appeal is waived and will not be considered on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees but not determining the amount of fees or costs is a non-final, non-appealable order, and such an order is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.”
Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo. Ass'n, 250 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
S.U.R., LLC and S.U.R. Corporation appealed a Circuit Court decision by Judge Maria de Jesus Santovenia in Miami-Dade County. The appellants raised is…
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 Non-Final, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
1 We sua sponte consolidate case numbers 3D24-0103 and 3D24-0105 for disposition only.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed; dismissed in part. Pesce v. Morgan, 388 So. 3d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.” (quoting Holland v.
Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So. 3d 648, 649-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))); Valparaiso
Realty Co. v. City of Valparaiso, 473 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (appellant’s defense of failure to join an indispensable party was “waived for failure to timely raise it [to the trial court], since non-joinder of parties is not a jurisdictional defect which may be raised at any time”); Supinski v. Omni
Healthcare, P.A., 853 So. 2d 526, 532 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“It is elemental that appellate courts will not consider evidence that was not presented to the trial court for its consideration in making its decisions.”);
Casey v. Mistral Condo. Ass’n,, 380 So. 3d 1278, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA
2024) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48,(1986))).
Appellants S.U.R., LLC and S.U.R. Corporation’s appeals with respect to the entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs issue is dismissed. Yampol v.
Turnberry Isle S. Condo. Ass’n,, 250 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“An order granting entitlement to attorney’s fees but not determining the amount of fees or costs is a non-final, non-appealable order, and such an order is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buckley v. Rubino, 406 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…s orders. This appeal followed. II. “While we review an order granting a motion to dismiss de novo, we review the trial court’s granting of dismissal with prejudice versus without prejudice under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pesce v. Morgan, 388 So. 3d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). III. On appeal, Buckley argues the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint with prejudice without providing an opportunity to amend.2 The record before us shows the trial court provided Buckley multipl…
-
Sundby v. Marks (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pesce v. Morgan, 388 So. 3d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“While we review an order granting a motion to dismiss de novo, we review the trial court's granting of dismissal with prejudice versus without prejudice under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Lam v. Univision Commc’ns,…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986)
- Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo Assoc., 250 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Edward Supinski, M.D. v. Omni Healthcare, P.A., 853 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Casey v. Mistral Condo. Ass'n, 380 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Valparaiso Realty Co. v. City OF Valparaiso, 473 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Pesce v. Morgan, 388 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)