Getman v. Tracey Constr. Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2D10–2318.,2D10–2318.
• Citation: 62 So.3d 1289
• Parties: Daniel GETMAN, Appellant,v.TRACEY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

62 So.3d 1289

Daniel GETMAN, Appellant,
v.
TRACEY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 2D10–2318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 24, 2011.

[62 So.3d 1290]

Matthew S. Toll of Lusk, Drasites, Tolisano & Smith, P.A., Cape Coral, for Appellant.Debra Potter Klauber of Haliczer, Pettis & Schwamm, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.BLACK, Judge.

Daniel Getman appeals the final summary judgment and award of damages entered in favor of Tracey Construction, Inc., in a breach of contract action. Because Tracey Construction failed to establish that it was entitled to summary judgment, we reverse. We do not reach the issue of whether the trial court erred in awarding damages without first holding an evidentiary hearing because we hold that Tracey Construction was not entitled to summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings.

Tracey Construction filed an unverified three-count complaint against Getman, alleging an action for breach of contract or, in the alternative, quantum meruit and lien foreclosure. Getman did not answer the complaint but instead filed a motion to dismiss. While Getman's motion was pending, Tracey Construction filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on Tracey Construction's motion, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Tracey Construction and awarding damages.

As a threshold matter, Tracey Construction contends that the order granting summary judgment is not a final,

[62 So.3d 1291]

appealable order. Although the order awards damages without expressly providing for execution of the judgment, “the language ‘for which let execution issue’ is not essential to the finality of a judgment.” City of Haines City v. Allen, 549 So.2d 678, 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citing Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So.2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)); see also Oliveri v. Bateman Group, Inc., 874 So.2d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Moreover, “[a] final order or judgment is one which evidences on its face that it adjudicates the merits of, and disposes of, the matter before the court and leaves no judicial labor to be done.” Cardillo v. Qualsure Ins. Corp., 974 So.2d 1174, 1175–76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We note, however, that while phrases like “for which let execution issue” are not essential for finality, the order must otherwise evidence finality on its face and the inclusion of such language will prevent both appealability and execution issues in the future. See Willis v....