A & M Painting v. Jennings

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A & M Painting v. Jennings

598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5834, 1992 WL 115796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3359

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 598 So. 2d 335 (A & M Painting v. Jennings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5834, 1992 WL 115796 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a three count complaint filed by appellee Jennings against appellant A & M Painting, Inc. Count I of the complaint was drafted together with a summons to show cause why a lien filed by A & M against Jennings should not be discharged. See § 713.21(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). A & M Painting, Inc. appeals two non-final orders, one denying its motion to quash process, and the second from an order granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash. We find also that the second order at issue here is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In so doing, we conclude that A & M failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. Accordingly, the petition for common law cer-tiorari is denied.

NON-FINAL APPEAL AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.

LETTS, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a three count complaint filed by appellee Jennings against appellant A & M Painting, Inc. Count I of the complaint was drafted together with a summons to show cause why a lien filed by A & M against Jennings should not be discharged. See § 713.21(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). A & M Painting, Inc. appeals two non-final orders, one denying its motion to quash process, and the second from an order granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash. We find also that the second order at issue here is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In so doing, we conclude that A & M failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. Accordingly, the petition for common law cer-tiorari is denied.

NON-FINAL APPEAL AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.

LETTS, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5834, 1992 WL 115796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-m-painting-v-jennings-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack