Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 80-1065

• Decision Date: 03 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80-1065,80-1065
• Citation: 388 So.2d 274
• Parties: Neville A. CHAN, Hilda Chan, Loren Wilson and Nadine Wilson, Appellants, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 274

388 So.2d 274

Neville A. CHAN, Hilda Chan, Loren Wilson and Nadine Wilson, Appellants, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Appellee.

No. 80-1065.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 3, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1980.

Richard W. Smith of Johnson & Smith, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Harry S. Raleigh, Jr. of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

We have for consideration appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely. At issue is whether a summary judgment was final and appealable. The reason for doubt becomes evident upon review of the sequence of events in the trial court.

On April 18, 1980, the summary judgment was entered. The words "for which let execution issue" do not appear in that summary judgment.

On May 19, 1980, appellee moved for amendment to include that phrase.

On June 5, 1980, an amended summary judgment including the phrase "for which let execution issue" was entered nunc pro tunc.

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 17, 1980.

Making the amendment "nunc pro tunc" has no significant effect on the timeliness issue. Stupp v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 135 So.2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). However the appeal is timely only if the summary judgment was not final until the addition of the traditional authorization for execution or, assuming it was final, if the motion to amend tolled the time for taking an appeal.

The pronouncement of a court may be characterized as final and appealable if the judicial labor required or permitted to be done has been accomplished. Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800 (Fla.1954). Where nothing further remains to be done to fully effectuate termination of the cause between the parties directly affected except enforcement by execution or otherwise, the judgment may be said to be final. Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 192 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Hensley v. Palmer, 59 So.2d 851 (Fla.1952). More specifically, where successive judgments are entered and the later judgment represents neither a material change of the earlier judgment nor a new exercise of discretion, the time for appeal is counted from the earlier judgment. Drummond v. Gerwe, 264 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

The summary judgment on appeal here provides in pertinent part:

1. There is no material issue of fact in dispute with respect to the Defendants, CONCORDE YACHTS, INC., DANIEL A. MURPHY, GERALDINE MURPHY, NEVILLE A. CHAN, HILDA CHAN, LOREN WILSON, NADINE WILSON or FRANCES BURGER and the Plaintiff is entitled to a Summary Judgment as a matter of law.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and a Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, CONCORDE YACHTS, INC., DANIEL A. MURPHY, GERALDINE MURPHY, NEVILLE A. CHAN, HILDA CHAN, LOREN WILSON, NADINE WILSON and FRANCES BURGER.

6. The Plaintiff shall have and recover from Defendants, CONCORDE YACHTS, INC., DANIEL A. MURPHY, GERALDINE MURPHY, NEVILLE A. CHAN, HILDA CHAN, LOREN WILSON, NADINE WILSON and FRANCES BURGER the sum of $397,254.23, jointly and severely (sic), together with costs of this action and a reasonable fee for the Plaintiff's attorneys.

It...