Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier

405 So. 2d 311, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21558
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 4, 1981
Docket81-1837
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 311 (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier) 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
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier, 405 So. 2d 311, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21558 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

405 So.2d 311 (1981)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Zipporah COLLIER, Appellee.

No. 81-1837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 4, 1981.

*312 James B. Denman of Bunnell & Denman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Mark J. Mintz of Ress, Gomez, Rosenberg & Howland, P.A., North Miami, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO REMAND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

LETTS, Chief Judge.

The appellant's motion to remand for entry of a Final Declaratory Judgment is denied.

This Court is of the opinion that the Summary Judgment here appealed is in fact final because it contains "magic words demonstrating finality." See Sloman v. Florida Power & Light Co., 382 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The totality of the words set forth in the instant Summary Judgment which lead us to that conclusion are as follows:

Defendant's motion for final summary judgment is hereby granted ... that the plaintiff take nothing by this suit and ... go hence without day.

In moving for a remand in filing a notice of intent to rely, both parties appear to doubt the finality of the instant judgment and cite Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) and Rizzuto v. DiPaolo III, 357 So.2d 490 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) as support. However, both these last two cited cases merely intoned that the motion for summary judgment was granted and neither contained additional language.

By contrast we base our conclusion here on the Supreme Court case of Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 135 So. 561 (Fla. 1931) and Baker v. Colley, 104 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) which both indicate that the use of additional language such as "the plaintiff take nothing by [this] suit ... and go hence without day" lends the necessary unequivocal declaration of finality that will support an appeal.

MOTION DENIED.

MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pakonis v. Clark
183 So. 3d 386 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Raymond v. Caldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc.
848 So. 2d 1160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Hoffman v. Hall
817 So. 2d 1057 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson
743 So. 2d 1215 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA
703 So. 2d 1066 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Duke v. Russell
557 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Bushweiler v. Levine
476 So. 2d 725 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Hawthorne v. Ross
413 So. 2d 466 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 So. 2d 311, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-ins-co-v-collier-fladistctapp-1981.