Hoffman v. Hall
| Decision Date | 06 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D02-0756.,1D02-0756. |
| Citation | 817 So.2d 1057 |
| Parties | Ken HOFFMAN, Trustee of the Eric S. Hoffman Irrevocable Trust, Appellant, v. William D. HALL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael P. Bist and William C. Owen of Gardner, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, Tallahassee, for appellant. William D. Hall, Tallahassee; J. Steven Carter of Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal as premature asserting that the order sought to be reviewed is not final. We agree and dismiss the appeal.
The circuit court issued an order titled, "Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint." Paragraph 1 of the order stated that the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. Paragraph 2 of the order stated, "Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice and judgment in favor of defendant shall be entered." This phrasing suggests that some future action "shall" be taken when the final judgment "shall" be issued. In addition, the title to the order does not indicate that it is intended to be a final order, but rather is simply an order on a motion. An order which merely grants a motion to dismiss but does not actually enter a final judgment is nonfinal and nonappealable. Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
In order to be final for appellate purposes, an order must demonstrate an end to the judicial labor in the case. Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). 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. Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Particular words and phrases are not essential to finality of an order. GEICO Fin. Servs. v. Kramer, 575 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(although typical for a final order, the phrase "for which let execution issue" is not essential for finality); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Open MRI of Orlando, Inc., 780 So.2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(phrases "plaintiff shall take nothing by this action" and "plaintiff shall go hence without day" are not essential to finality); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 467 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(order was final even though it did not include the words "with prejudice"). However, the use of such phrases does signal a final adjudication of the cause as between the parties.
To be appealable as a final order, an order must contain unequivocal language of finality. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier, 405 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)(order which provided that "Defendant's motion for final summary judgment is hereby granted that the plaintiff take nothing by this suit and go hence without day" was final, appealable order; use of additional language "len[t] the necessary unequivocal declaration of finality that will support an appeal"); Danford v. City of Rockledge, 387 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)(orders granting motions for summary judgment, which contained neither "the traditional words of finality nor other words of similar import," were not final orders subject to appellate review). Where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Gables Imports, Inc. v. Suarez
...3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). To be deemed final, "an order must demonstrate an end to the judicial labor." Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citation omitted). "The traditional test for finality is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leavin......
-
Rollins Fruit Company, Inc. v. Wilson
...Comm'rs v. Grice, 438 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla.1983); Hayward & Assocs. v. Hoffman, 793 So.2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So.2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). It follows that the order granting the motions t......
-
Touchton v. Woodside Credit, LLC
...no questions open for judicial determination except for execution and enforcement of the decree if necessary." Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). "While an order must contain 'unequivocal language of finality,' an order or judgment of a court does not need to contai......
-
Schron v. Nunziata
...order on appeal in case number 2D12–5355 is nonfinal. The order contains no unequivocal language of finality. See Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So.2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Where, as here, some future order is contemplated, the order is nonfinal for our purposes. See id. In sum, the order i......
-
Jumping the gun: premature appeals in civil cases.
...the action without prejudice to bring another action may be determined by examining the context of the order."); Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2002) ("In the case before this court, the title of the order, the lack of language demonstrating finality and the ambiguo......
-
Chapter 19-4 Appeals Used in Foreclosure Proceedings
...the traditional test for determining finality—that the order reflects an end to judicial labor—must be met.").[22] Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("Particular words and phrases are not essential to finality of an order."). Some particular phrases are frequently u......
-
Chapter 18-4 Types of Appeals Used in Foreclosure
...judicial labor- must be met.") (citing Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, 621 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)); see also Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).[17] Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("Particular words and phrases are not essential to fina......